IRC log of RDB2RDF on 2011-09-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:30:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #RDB2RDF
15:30:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-irc
15:30:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:30:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #RDB2RDF
15:30:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 7322733
15:30:39 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM scheduled to start in 30 minutes
15:30:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDB2RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:30:40 [trackbot]
Date: 13 September 2011
15:51:42 [juansequeda]
juansequeda has joined #RDB2RDF
15:53:58 [mhausenblas]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0016.html
15:54:02 [mhausenblas]
Chair: Michael
15:54:08 [mhausenblas]
scribenick: mhausenblas
15:54:13 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:54:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html mhausenblas
15:54:19 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:54:30 [mhausenblas]
regrets+ Ashok
15:55:06 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, this will be SW_RDB2RDF()
15:55:06 [Zakim]
ok, mhausenblas; I see SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:58:10 [Zakim]
SW_RDB2RDF()12:00PM has now started
15:58:17 [Zakim]
+mhausenblas
15:58:30 [mhausenblas]
present+ Michael
15:58:54 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:58:54 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:58:55 [Zakim]
+Ivan
15:59:01 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-office
15:59:01 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
15:59:03 [Zakim]
+EricP
15:59:08 [mhausenblas]
present+ Ivan
15:59:13 [mhausenblas]
present+ Eric
16:00:33 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
16:00:40 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:00:40 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:00:43 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:00:43 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:00:45 [mhausenblas]
present+ Ted
16:01:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.562.714.aaaa
16:01:30 [Zakim]
+juansequeda
16:01:50 [mhausenblas]
present+ Juan
16:01:55 [mhausenblas]
present+ Marcelo
16:03:41 [dmcneil]
dmcneil has joined #RDB2RDF
16:03:59 [boris]
boris has joined #rdb2rdf
16:04:40 [nunolopes]
nunolopes has joined #RDB2RDF
16:04:52 [nunolopes]
Zakim, nunolopes is with mhausenblas
16:04:52 [Zakim]
+nunolopes; got it
16:05:30 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
16:05:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see mhausenblas, Ivan, EricP, MacTed (muted), +1.562.714.aaaa, juansequeda
16:05:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see nunolopes, boris, dmcneil, juansequeda, Zakim, RRSAgent, mhausenblas, LeeF, MacTed, ivan, iv_an_ru_, trackbot, ericP
16:05:34 [Zakim]
mhausenblas has mhausenblas, nunolopes
16:05:42 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, aaaa is Marcelo
16:05:42 [Zakim]
+Marcelo; got it
16:05:57 [Zakim]
+dmcneil
16:06:09 [mhausenblas]
present+ David
16:06:37 [Marcelo]
Marcelo has joined #rdb2rdf
16:06:58 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:06:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html mhausenblas
16:07:17 [Marcelo]
Marcelo has left #rdb2rdf
16:07:32 [mhausenblas]
present+ Nuno
16:07:57 [mhausenblas]
Topic: Admin
16:08:02 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/09/06-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
16:08:09 [Seema]
Seema has joined #rdb2rdf
16:08:22 [nunolopes]
+1
16:08:22 [juansequeda]
+1
16:08:26 [ivan]
1
16:08:38 [mhausenblas]
RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/09/06-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
16:08:52 [mhausenblas]
Topic: ISSUE-48
16:09:00 [Marcelo]
Marcelo has joined #rdb2rdf
16:09:04 [mhausenblas]
ISSUE-48?
16:09:04 [trackbot]
ISSUE-48 -- Mapping SQL datatypes to RDF -- pending review
16:09:04 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/48
16:09:22 [mhausenblas]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0007.html
16:09:41 [Zakim]
+seema
16:09:46 [mhausenblas]
Michael: David, are we fine with it now?
16:09:50 [mhausenblas]
David: yes
16:09:56 [mhausenblas]
present+ Seema
16:10:26 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-48 as it is addressed in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#datatype-conversions
16:10:35 [Zakim]
+Souri
16:10:40 [mhausenblas]
present+ Souri
16:10:55 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdb2rdf
16:11:12 [MacTed]
+1 proposal
16:11:17 [nunolopes]
+1
16:11:22 [dmcneil]
+1
16:11:23 [ivan]
+1
16:11:29 [mhausenblas]
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-48 as it is addressed in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#datatype-conversions
16:11:40 [mhausenblas]
Topic: ISSUE-66 and ISSUE-61
16:11:48 [ivan]
ISSUE-66?
16:11:48 [trackbot]
ISSUE-66 -- Translation Scheme as proposed seems too complicated for the simple task of mapping <DB value(s), RDF term> -- open
16:11:48 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/66
16:11:54 [ivan]
ISSUE-61?
16:11:54 [trackbot]
ISSUE-61 -- Re-using public entity identifiers - look-up table -- pending review
16:11:54 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/61
16:12:24 [ivan]
Souri: the translation scheme is difficult
16:12:29 [mhausenblas]
Michael: propose to first address ISSUE-66 and the we can also close ISSUE-61
16:12:32 [ivan]
... we came up with a solution taht is simpler
16:12:47 [ivan]
... there are several issues that come up
16:12:52 [mhausenblas]
scribenick: ivan
16:12:55 [ivan]
... we came with a simplification
16:13:13 [ivan]
... one is many to one we are thinking of reducing it to one to one
16:13:29 [ivan]
... unless the user really asks for it we should not complicate our lives
16:13:39 [ivan]
... one to one suffices in our view
16:14:00 [ivan]
Souri: the other aspect you currently associate one or more tranlsation scheme
16:14:20 [ivan]
... but if you do that with the predicate map, we believe it is becoming difficult to figure it out
16:14:41 [ivan]
... if you are not materialize it but you take the query it becomes difficult
16:14:56 [ivan]
,,, we did make that restriction
16:15:04 [ivan]
... if last call comment come back to us
16:15:25 [ivan]
... these are the two restrictions we wanted to put into it to reduce the complexity of implementation to the minimum
16:15:44 [ivan]
... other than that we tried to avoid skos, just called it a simle translation map
16:16:03 [ivan]
... there is an rdf term that is associated to at term map
16:16:25 [ivan]
... the translation scheme if present then it maps an rdf term to another one
16:16:39 [ivan]
... the translation scheme is just a description of such pairs
16:16:57 [ivan]
... it took us quite some time to find out the implementation difficulties
16:17:05 [ivan]
mhausenblas: i would be happy moving on
16:17:13 [ivan]
... there was one comment from ted regarding skos
16:17:31 [Souri]
Here is the URL for translation scheme: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#translation-schemes
16:17:31 [ivan]
... this is something where I would prefer to cut certain features to move on
16:17:37 [ivan]
... ted came up with a solution
16:17:53 [ivan]
... that would support the skos use case, but would keep it also simple like souri suggested
16:17:55 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:17:55 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:18:15 [ivan]
MacTed: my suggestion to stick with richard's suggestion
16:18:31 [ivan]
... the new set of pairs seems to be equivalent to broadMatch
16:18:43 [ivan]
... if we say: use that, if you do not know any better
16:18:54 [ivan]
... and others can do more, we do not close the door
16:19:08 [ivan]
mhausenblas: i am bit unsure...
16:19:13 [ivan]
there 4 ways
16:19:17 [ivan]
... 1 richard
16:19:23 [ivan]
.... 2 souri and seema
16:19:25 [Souri]
q+
16:19:30 [ivan]
.... 3 drop section 9
16:19:42 [ivan]
.... 4 factor it out into a different, non rec-track document
16:19:43 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:19:48 [mhausenblas]
ack Souri
16:20:01 [ivan]
Souri: my main concern is that we try to such broad things
16:20:16 [ivan]
... but the rdb2rdf does not need that type of relationships
16:20:24 [ivan]
... that can be done separately as another document
16:21:04 [ivan]
... the mapping of, say, /Boston, should be done in a separate document
16:21:05 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:21:28 [ivan]
... anything that mapping should be done in a separate mapping portion
16:22:06 [ivan]
MacTed: this is where this separate document lives!
16:22:25 [ivan]
mhausenblas: the idea is to cut down section 9 to minimum, where it is just defined
16:22:38 [ivan]
... and then putting the translation is in a separate document
16:22:59 [ivan]
MacTed: what souri said was to split r2rml into separate document
16:23:03 [Souri]
q+
16:23:06 [ivan]
... that makes it more complicated
16:23:07 [mhausenblas]
ack Souri
16:23:35 [ivan]
Souri: all I am thinking about is you have a database, you map a particular column, the column 'R'
16:23:47 [ivan]
... I want to show that as column 'Red'
16:23:58 [ivan]
... I can then define a mapping R->Red
16:24:19 [ivan]
... R can also be in the visible light class
16:24:29 [ivan]
.... but that aspect should be in a separate document
16:24:36 [ivan]
... that I may or may not want to include
16:25:02 [ivan]
... document is a separate rdf graph or owl, not a document as a note or something similar
16:25:22 [ivan]
mhausenblas: so section 9 should only have some sort of an 'interface' and that is it
16:25:45 [ivan]
MacTed: it is a way to do it but it does not really simplify it
16:25:56 [ivan]
mhausenblas: who would oppose to totally drop section 9
16:26:02 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:26:07 [ivan]
Souri: before, I want to discuss something
16:26:14 [ivan]
... if you look at the example
16:26:34 [ivan]
... it this example we are saying code/1 that we can generate templates is not very good,
16:26:42 [ivan]
... we want code/indian
16:26:58 [ivan]
... we just want to get to that well known meaningful uris
16:27:29 [ivan]
... but we might want to say that that both can be mapped to /indian and /thai are all /asian
16:27:38 [ivan]
... that aspect is not in the mapping
16:27:48 [ivan]
... the rest is some sort of ontology
16:27:54 [ivan]
... that you express in owl or other
16:28:01 [ivan]
... but that is not for r2rml
16:28:25 [ivan]
MacTed: after that you have only /indian or also /1?
16:29:02 [ivan]
... I think that the many to one is really valuable, and that has been removed
16:29:10 [ivan]
... having the original iri is also valuable
16:29:20 [ivan]
... there was a move towards more powerful options
16:29:44 [ivan]
... by removing the many to one says nobody need the more complex one
16:29:53 [ivan]
Souri: the idea of the spec is to keep it as simple as possible
16:30:07 [ivan]
... making it elegant also requires lot of work
16:30:25 [ivan]
MacTed: simplification for its own purpose is not valuable
16:30:48 [ivan]
... if you do not know skos, use broadmatch, it allows many to many,
16:31:02 [ivan]
... but lets people who understand to use skos fully
16:31:25 [ivan]
mhausenblas: main question is if you can merge the skos version of richard and yours, souri, which is simpler?
16:31:41 [ivan]
... if you want to leverage skos then you can do it
16:32:03 [ivan]
Souri: you can do it outside, put it into a separate graph, and then merge them
16:32:15 [ivan]
mhausenblas: but you need to preserve the original uris
16:32:29 [ivan]
Souri: if you want to prefer /1 you can include that all
16:32:52 [ivan]
... we have a disagreement
16:33:02 [ivan]
... I definitely feel positively to our position
16:33:09 [ivan]
... there is a strong support for the other side
16:33:22 [ivan]
... I would say let us drop it
16:33:47 [ivan]
mhausenblas: I would feel comfortable if the terms you use here to use the same terms
16:33:56 [ivan]
Souri: translation map was not there
16:34:04 [ivan]
... the syntax and the vocabulary use ws different
16:34:18 [ivan]
mhausenblas: we are free to have things in there
16:34:25 [ivan]
... if we can agree to drop section 9
16:34:41 [ivan]
... and have a separate, non-rec track document describing things
16:34:51 [ivan]
... but I am fine dropping it
16:35:25 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: Drop section 9 and close ISSUE-61 and ISSUE-66 with it (maybe reuse text in a non-REC track document)
16:35:56 [ivan]
+1
16:36:16 [Souri]
+1
16:36:22 [Seema]
+1
16:36:24 [MacTed]
-1 dropping the section
16:36:25 [nunolopes]
+1
16:37:12 [ivan]
MacTed: it is problematic to me the way these things happened
16:37:21 [ivan]
... there were several examples side by side
16:37:24 [Souri]
please see the old version
16:37:33 [ivan]
... it is no longer possible to compare these because they are not there
16:37:42 [ivan]
mhausenblas: we have spent just time...
16:37:54 [ivan]
MacTed: the other thing has already been removed
16:38:04 [ivan]
Souri: we kept both versions in the last 2-3 versions
16:38:07 [dmcneil]
is there a link to the older version?
16:38:22 [Souri]
Ivan, how do we see the older version?
16:39:16 [Souri]
what is the CVS command to fetch a prev version?
16:40:05 [ivan]
MacTed: my proposal was the previous version of the section
16:40:18 [ivan]
... rather than creating that new set of terms
16:40:29 [ivan]
... and say using skos terms
16:40:36 [ivan]
mhausenblas: that is a full circle
16:40:49 [ivan]
... richard wording was for issue 61
16:40:55 [ivan]
... and souri objected to it
16:41:07 [Souri]
-1 to the previous version (involving SKOS)
16:41:09 [ivan]
MacTed: but the complication was that you ahve to use skos
16:41:21 [MacTed]
s/use/know/
16:41:36 [ivan]
mhausenblas: I personally support skos, but souri still says that the previous section would not work
16:41:50 [ivan]
souri: it is not the matter of knowing skos
16:42:03 [ivan]
... we do not feel that it is not to be part of r2ml
16:42:15 [ivan]
... what we need to put there is the minimum
16:42:28 [ivan]
... you already have all the other possibilities outside of r2rml
16:42:39 [ivan]
MacTed: the minimum functionality is dm
16:42:52 [dmcneil]
+q
16:42:58 [ivan]
... we wanted to make something more complex that would map to other vocabularies
16:43:07 [ivan]
... dm cannot do this mapping
16:43:10 [ivan]
... which is correct
16:43:28 [mhausenblas]
ack dmcneil
16:43:32 [ivan]
... for the person who does not know skos
16:43:45 [ivan]
Souri: the implementation nhas to support the full spectrum
16:43:59 [ivan]
dmcneil: the point souri is making is a very good point
16:44:25 [ivan]
... I need to think through to see the implications
16:44:38 [ivan]
... so I think that at this point I agree dropping it
16:44:49 [ivan]
mhausenblas: I do not see anything that will resolve this
16:45:05 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: Drop section 9 and close ISSUE-61 and ISSUE-66 with it (maybe reuse text in a non-REC track document)
16:45:14 [ivan]
MacTed: fine, drop the section, but I want the previous iteration to be visible somewhere
16:46:15 [MacTed]
+0
16:46:36 [mhausenblas]
RESOLUTION: Drop section 9 and close ISSUE-61 and ISSUE-66 with it (maybe reuse text in a non-REC track document)
16:46:52 [ivan]
topic: issue 59
16:46:52 [mhausenblas]
Topic: ISSUE-59
16:46:57 [ivan]
ISSUE-59?
16:46:57 [trackbot]
ISSUE-59 -- Syntactic sugar for triples maps that only have a single predicate-object map -- pending review
16:46:57 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/59
16:47:01 [mhausenblas]
ISSUE-59?
16:47:01 [trackbot]
ISSUE-59 -- Syntactic sugar for triples maps that only have a single predicate-object map -- pending review
16:47:01 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/59
16:47:42 [ivan]
mhausenblas: it is a syntactic sugar
16:47:48 [ivan]
Souri: it is only a shortcut
16:48:07 [ivan]
... when there is a single predicate object map
16:48:13 [ivan]
... typically a map will have several
16:48:22 [ivan]
... so this short cut does not really make sense
16:48:27 [dmcneil]
richard was specifically targetting the case of a many-to-many join table
16:48:29 [ivan]
.... our proposal was not to have it
16:48:39 [dmcneil]
he argued that it was common/useful in this case
16:48:50 [mhausenblas]
Michael: which would mean to remove http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#dfn-implicit-predicate-object-map
16:49:14 [ivan]
dmcneil: richard's response it is common in the many-to-many join table case
16:49:18 [juansequeda]
q+
16:49:23 [ivan]
... he specifically targeted this on that case
16:49:24 [mhausenblas]
ack juansequeda
16:49:31 [ivan]
juansequeda: i asked that question
16:49:42 [ivan]
... m-t-m was very complex to me
16:49:52 [ivan]
... but the way it could be done this
16:49:59 [ivan]
... if we do not have this as a sugar
16:50:12 [ivan]
... then I would like to see an example how to see it in the document
16:50:28 [ivan]
mhausenblas: in the document richard has captured the description of the issue
16:50:38 [ivan]
... it would make sense to get this example there
16:51:03 [ivan]
Souri: we added the example richard had and added an example on how to it
16:51:05 [mhausenblas]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#example-m2m
16:51:15 [ivan]
juansequeda: if it is already done, then forget my comments
16:51:28 [ivan]
Souri: if you look at it if it is o.k.
16:51:42 [ivan]
... the second example was the one the sugar was meant to
16:51:53 [ivan]
juansequeda: I will take a look
16:52:45 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: Remove section http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#dfn-implicit-predicate-object-map that contains syntactic sugar for single predicate-object map and close ISSUE-59
16:52:47 [mhausenblas]
q?
16:52:55 [ivan]
juansequeda: it looks good!
16:53:00 [ivan]
+1
16:53:04 [Souri]
+1
16:53:17 [nunolopes]
+1
16:53:20 [MacTed]
+1
16:53:42 [juansequeda]
q+
16:54:05 [ivan]
juansequeda: is there a tracked in as an r2rml version 2?
16:54:18 [Souri]
v 1.1 :-)
16:54:20 [mhausenblas]
ack juansequeda
16:54:39 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: Remove section http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#dfn-implicit-predicate-object-map that contains syntactic sugar for single predicate-object map and postpone ISSUE-59
16:55:02 [Souri]
+1
16:55:02 [ivan]
+1
16:55:05 [nunolopes]
+1
16:55:05 [Seema]
+1
16:55:10 [MacTed]
even better +1
16:55:11 [juansequeda]
+1
16:55:18 [Marcelo]
+1
16:55:44 [ivan]
RESOLVED: Remove section http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/r2rml/#dfn-implicit-predicate-object-map that contains syntactic sugar for single predicate-object map and postpone ISSUE-59
16:55:51 [mhausenblas]
Topic: ISSUE-65
16:55:56 [mhausenblas]
ISSUE-65?
16:55:56 [trackbot]
ISSUE-65 -- For uniformity and performance, "literal" triples must be always generated for each child table column in a foreign key -- open
16:55:56 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/65
16:55:56 [ivan]
ISSUE-65?
16:55:57 [trackbot]
ISSUE-65 -- For uniformity and performance, "literal" triples must be always generated for each child table column in a foreign key -- open
16:55:59 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/65
16:56:05 [mhausenblas]
ISSUE-67?
16:56:05 [trackbot]
ISSUE-67 -- Separationn characters for reference IRIs and row IRIs -- raised
16:56:05 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/67
16:57:00 [ivan]
mhausenblas: i would like to close issue 65, we had an greement on that
16:57:09 [ivan]
.. modulo the iri characters
16:57:15 [ivan]
... which is issue 67
16:57:19 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-65 based on last weeks discussion with general agreement
16:57:24 [ivan]
s/iri/separator/
16:57:26 [ivan]
+1
16:57:27 [juansequeda]
+1
16:57:28 [Marcelo]
+1
16:57:33 [MacTed]
+1
16:57:36 [nunolopes]
+1
16:57:38 [Souri]
s/ greement/ agreement/
16:57:44 [ivan]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-65 based on last weeks discussion with general agreement
16:57:53 [ivan]
mhausenblas: eric, summarize
16:58:28 [ivan]
ericP: so basically we have a bunch of choices with all being sort of attractive
16:58:46 [ivan]
... we build up the refernce and row iris
16:58:51 [ericP]
① attr¹-val¹.attrⁿ-valⁿ ref-attr¹.attrⁿ
16:58:51 [ericP]
② attr¹.val¹-attrⁿ.valⁿ ref-attr¹-attrⁿ
16:58:51 [ericP]
③ attr¹-val¹.attrⁿ-valⁿ ref-attr¹-attrⁿ
16:58:51 [ericP]
④ attr¹=val¹,attrⁿ=valⁿ ref-attr¹-attrⁿ
16:58:51 [ericP]
⑤ attr¹.val¹.attrⁿ.valⁿ ref.attr¹.attrⁿ
16:59:13 [ivan]
ericP: some of those let you do better in turtle
16:59:16 [ivan]
... and sparql
16:59:30 [ivan]
... some others comform to the guidlines of the rfc-s
16:59:54 [ivan]
... having looked around motivations on the iri document
17:00:04 [ivan]
... for '..' there is som
17:00:08 [ivan]
s/som/some/
17:00:18 [ivan]
...otherwise there is no real motivation
17:00:26 [ivan]
... there is also a question of aesthetics
17:00:41 [ivan]
... those are not expressible as qnames (using '=')
17:00:58 [Zakim]
-Marcelo
17:01:07 [ivan]
.... so my proposal is, based on my draft of the direct mapping, to go to last call with the text as it is
17:01:30 [ivan]
... and make the community on notice that the punctuation character might change
17:01:45 [ivan]
mhausenblas: we write a spec, we should say 'this is what we agree'
17:02:03 [ivan]
... i am happy to write put there something that say there is a choice
17:02:09 [ivan]
... we should choose one
17:02:13 [Zakim]
+Marcelo
17:02:45 [ivan]
mhausenblas: here are the options that this is what we chose' is something we should do
17:02:47 [ericP]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/explicitFK#defn-percent-encode
17:02:53 [ivan]
... we have to have a current stand
17:03:40 [mhausenblas]
Should say 67 and not 76
17:04:10 [ivan]
eric: my proposal would be to go to last call with what we have
17:04:18 [ivan]
q+
17:04:30 [dmcneil]
i haven't followed the full details of the discussion about the delimiters, but it does seem suprising to me that none of the options use the main URI delimiter: /
17:04:37 [ericP]
PROPOSAL: public http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/explicitFK#defn-percent-encode as a Last Call of the Direct Mapping
17:04:45 [mhausenblas]
ack ivan
17:08:38 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-67 with going for option [1] and make a note about alternative options
17:12:24 [mhausenblas]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0009.html
17:13:07 [ivan]
PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-67 with going for option [1] and make a note in the document referring to : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0009.html
17:13:35 [ivan]
+1
17:13:35 [ericP]
+1
17:13:37 [MacTed]
+1
17:13:51 [juansequeda]
+1
17:13:53 [Marcelo]
+1
17:14:16 [ivan]
mhausenblas: thank you
17:14:23 [ivan]
... it seems that we are through
17:14:31 [ivan]
... we have closed all the issues for last call
17:14:42 [ivan]
... as soon as the editors have implemented the resolution
17:15:02 [Souri]
q+
17:15:08 [mhausenblas]
ack Souri
17:15:25 [ivan]
Souri: just to comfirm: I remove to translation scheme and the sugar, right?
17:15:28 [ivan]
mhausenblas: yes
17:15:31 [mhausenblas]
Michael: Can the Editors implement the resolutions ASAP?
17:15:42 [ivan]
Souri: I will get it done soon
17:15:58 [Souri]
what is the CVS command to fetch a prev version?
17:16:31 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: The WG has closed all pending issues and decides to go LC with both R2RML and DM
17:16:39 [ivan]
+1
17:17:10 [mhausenblas]
PROPOSAL: The WG has closed all pending issues and decides to go LC with both R2RML and DM once the Editors have implemented the resolutions of 2011-09-13 telecon
17:17:17 [Souri]
+1
17:17:20 [nunolopes]
+1
17:17:29 [ivan]
+1
17:17:29 [juansequeda]
+1`
17:17:30 [Seema]
+1
17:17:31 [ericP]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/directMapping/explicitFK#defn-percent-encode
17:17:37 [Marcelo]
+1
17:17:41 [ericP]
+1
17:17:45 [MacTed]
+1
17:17:53 [mhausenblas]
Michael: +1
17:18:22 [Zakim]
-seema
17:18:23 [Zakim]
-Souri
17:18:23 [Zakim]
-dmcneil
17:18:24 [ivan]
adjourned
17:18:26 [mhausenblas]
[meeting adjourned]
17:18:30 [Zakim]
-Ivan
17:18:32 [Zakim]
-mhausenblas
17:18:38 [Zakim]
-MacTed
17:18:52 [Zakim]
-Marcelo
17:20:24 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:20:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:21:46 [ericP]
'<valsep>-</valsep>
17:21:51 [mhausenblas]
RESOLUTION: The WG has closed all pending issues and decides to go LC with both R2RML and DM once the Editors have implemented the resolutions of 2011-09-13 telecon
17:21:54 [ericP]
attrsep
17:22:04 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:22:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:23:32 [Zakim]
-juansequeda
17:27:20 [nunolopes]
nunolopes has joined #RDB2RDF
17:27:56 [nunolopes]
nunolopes has joined #RDB2RDF
17:29:11 [mhausenblas]
s/mhausenblas: thank you/RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-67 with going for option [1] and make a note in the document referring to : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0009.html
17:29:30 [mhausenblas]
s/... it seems that we are through/mhausenblas: it seems that we are through
17:29:37 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:29:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:30:28 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:30:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:32:39 [mhausenblas]
s/PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-67 with going for option [1] and make a note in the document referring to : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0009.html/RESOLUTION:">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0009.html/RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-67 with going for option [1] and make a note in the document referring to : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0009.html
17:32:42 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:32:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html mhausenblas
17:35:05 [mhausenblas]
ericP?
17:35:23 [mhausenblas]
you know that you still have a reference to ISSUE-48 in the DM doc, right?
17:35:36 [mhausenblas]
as it is resolved, can you update this section as well pls?
17:36:24 [ericP]
mhausenblas, will do
17:36:28 [mhausenblas]
thanks
17:56:10 [mhausenblas]
trackbot, end telecon
17:56:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:56:10 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been mhausenblas, Ivan, EricP, MacTed, +1.562.714.aaaa, juansequeda, nunolopes, Marcelo, dmcneil, seema, Souri
17:56:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:56:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html trackbot
17:56:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:56:12 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items