13:57:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
13:57:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/01-sparql-irc
13:57:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
13:57:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #sparql
13:57:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
13:57:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:57:43 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:57:43 <trackbot> Date: 01 November 2011
13:57:47 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
13:57:47 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
13:58:12 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
13:58:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:58:27 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
13:58:27 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
13:58:47 <AndyS> sandro? The WG resolved to publish two docs (overview as WD, fed query as LC) 2 weeks ago - do you have everything you need?
13:59:08 <Zakim> +??P1
13:59:18 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P1 is me
13:59:18 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
13:59:42 <kasei> Zakim telling me the passcode is invalid...
14:00:12 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum
14:00:20 <LeeF> zakim, Lee_Feigenbaum is LeeF
14:00:20 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
14:00:31 <Zakim> +??P2
14:00:35 <swh> Zakim, ??P2 is me
14:00:35 <Zakim> +swh; got it
14:00:46 <MattPerry> MattPerry has joined #sparql
14:00:49 <LeeF> swh, do you mind scribing?
14:01:00 <Zakim> +sandro
14:01:11 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, pgearon, chimezie
14:01:16 <kasei> curse you, Zakim!
14:01:22 <LeeF> keep trying, kasei :D
14:01:25 <Zakim> +MattPerry
14:01:30 <kasei> Zakim, what is the code?
14:01:30 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), kasei
14:01:35 <kasei> :|
14:01:48 <MattPerry> yes
14:01:50 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
14:01:53 <kasei> LeeF: is there reason to think it will randomly start working at some point?
14:02:00 <Zakim> +kasei
14:02:03 <kasei> wtf
14:02:04 <LeeF> kasei: past experience
14:02:07 <LeeF> kasei: :-)
14:02:13 <sandro> AndyS, give or take pubrules corrections, I think so.
14:02:32 <alex> alex has joined #sparql
14:02:47 <AndyS> sandro - great - just making sure we haven't forgotten something that's a block on process
14:03:07 <LeeF> Scribe: swh
14:03:27 <swh> scribenick: swh
14:03:50 <Zakim> +??P8
14:03:59 <swh> LeeF: want to make progress on…?
14:04:02 <bglimm> Zakim, +??P8 is me
14:04:02 <Zakim> sorry, bglimm, I do not recognize a party named '+??P8'
14:04:07 <LeeF> zakim, who's speaking?
14:04:15 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P8 is me
14:04:15 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
14:04:18 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
14:04:18 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:04:20 <Zakim> LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: LeeF (73%), ??P8 (73%)
14:04:26 <bglimm> Yes, that's me
14:04:35 <swh> … comments
14:04:42 <swh> … including making sure they're all assigned
14:04:43 <Zakim> + +3539149aaaa
14:04:51 <alexpassant> Zakim, +3539149aaaa is me
14:04:51 <Zakim> +alexpassant; got it
14:05:07 <swh> … need to close out all comments we haven't closed, prepare documents of 2LC
14:05:20 <swh> … before comments in detail
14:05:30 <swh> … anybody as ISWC, anything to report?
14:05:35 <AndyS> q+
14:05:49 <LeeF> ack AndyS
14:06:12 <swh> AndyS: at ISWC there was a lot of SPARQL, managed to go to a query related session every time, federated, efficiency, extraction work etc. based on SPARQL
14:06:16 <swh> … quite a lot of SPARQL 1.1
14:06:28 <swh> LeeF: any general sentiment about 1.1?
14:06:49 <swh> AndyS: felt like it was accepted, people are using it now
14:06:52 <swh> … expecting it to happen
14:07:04 <swh> LeeF: good, meshes well with what I've heard
14:07:05 <bglimm> I agree with Andy, SPARQL 1.1 is used and I didn't here real criticism
14:07:32 <swh> LeeF: ought to help with implementation report
14:07:33 <LeeF> topic: schedule 
14:07:36 <bglimm> s/here/hear/
14:07:53 <swh> LeeF: axel put forward a tentative schedule for next few weeks
14:08:16 <swh> … milestones - 22nd nov telecon, begin approving 2LC versions
14:08:21 <swh> … finish off on 29th
14:08:33 <swh> … not a lot of changes need to be made
14:08:45 <swh> … will need to line up reviewers
14:09:07 <swh> … will talk to editors to make sure everything is lined up
14:09:14 <swh> … need to make sure we've looked at all the comments
14:10:14 <AndyS> Oi! JSON results is rec track - that's the point!
14:10:23 <swh> … goal to start on tests suite, Impl reports in new year
14:10:39 <swh> … leave us with 1.1 reqs by end of june
14:11:09 <swh> … substantive questions about JSON res format
14:11:29 <swh> … one of the things we've heard is that W3C is less likely than they have been to extend charters
14:11:47 <swh> … group may not get extension without aggressive work
14:12:19 <swh> sandro: I've heard that there's a change in the level of concern [about extensions]
14:12:23 <swh> … I wouldn't really worry about it
14:12:30 <swh> … as long as the grp is active it should be ok
14:13:03 <swh> LeeF: it's not formal policy, we're all going to lose steam, so should push ahead
14:13:22 <swh> … will email schedule to list later today
14:13:40 <LeeF> topic: Comments
14:13:52 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments
14:14:29 <swh> LeeF: will reach out to editors not on call with comments assigned to them
14:14:37 <swh> … maybe finish some off
14:15:06 <swh> … comment on bnode ordering
14:15:15 <swh> … AndyS, you tied that with some other comments
14:15:21 <swh> AndyS: I can deal with that
14:16:01 <swh> … related to something by David Booth, I would punt to RDFWG, skolemisation
14:16:14 <swh> … not keen on making changes
14:16:41 <swh> LeeF: we don't have enough underlying mechanisms to define that ourselves
14:17:17 <swh> LB-8
14:17:20 <swh> JB-8
14:17:28 <swh> kasei: work done, needs writing up
14:17:38 <swh> .. it's fixed
14:17:50 <swh> DB-11/a
14:18:14 <swh> AndyS: I took it to be a question, not a comment
14:19:00 <swh> … if there's an easy way to address I don't mind doing it, but the spec is not a tutorial
14:19:15 <swh> … as long as the tech details are right, lets keep moving forwards
14:19:23 <swh> LeeF: do we have a test case that illustrates this
14:19:27 <swh> AndyS: don't know
14:19:47 <swh> LeeF: if we make a promise to include a test case to highlight scoping, that seems more appropriate
14:20:07 <swh> AndyS: I'll see if there's a test case, and put one in if not
14:20:41 <swh> DB-15 - editorial
14:20:49 <swh> LeeF: Andy or Steve, one of you like to handle that
14:21:11 <swh> AndyS: I'll do it, but it's a SPARQL 1.0 point, hasn't been revisited
14:21:54 <swh> DaveB - output rows are a bad idea[?]
14:22:10 <swh> LeeF: I thought i saw some discussion
14:22:20 <swh> kasei: the test case he's talking about is perverse
14:22:27 <swh> … the issue is nonsensical
14:22:40 <swh> … doesn't align with his system, but the semantics are not in question
14:22:58 <swh> … not sure he'd agree with that, but I don;t think there's any fundamental problem
14:23:17 <swh> AndyS: I've removed this test case from the manifest
14:24:08 <swh> kasei: it could come up in the future, but it's a weird way to write tests
14:25:01 <swh> LeeF drafting response to this comment
14:26:07 <swh> DB-14 [?]
14:26:21 <swh> LeeF: I'm going to put AndyS's name on this, similar situation to the other
14:26:47 <AndyS> SHA224 tests removal done.
14:28:12 <swh> LeeF: there's some responses that haven't been ACKd, so we'll send some 2nd notices for LC comments that we're going to close them
14:28:35 <swh> DB-12
14:28:51 <swh> LeeF: has axel sent that message?
14:29:17 <swh> … I don't see a message from axel, our response is "yes, that's fine"
14:29:26 <swh> … sending now
14:30:28 <swh> DB-11
14:30:35 <swh> AndyS has sent a response
14:31:09 <swh> DB-10 - close
14:33:37 <swh> BT-2,3
14:33:46 <swh> swh: will take a look at them
14:34:12 <swh> DB-7
14:34:40 <swh> kasei: needs a few words added to draft
14:34:45 <swh> RC-4
14:35:04 <swh> LeeF: looking at draft, we had a WG decision needed
14:35:14 <swh> … I'm not swapped in on it
14:35:21 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RC-4
14:35:49 <swh> AndyS: asked for help from Paul last week (c.f. DB-4)
14:36:04 <swh> … we need to make a decision, red box in LC doc
14:36:27 <swh> … email on list a few weeks ago
14:36:39 <swh> LeeF: we ought to put a proposal on next weeks agenda
14:37:27 <swh> AndyS: my inclination is that the RDF WG will do the other thing, so we should do what they do
14:37:48 <swh> … don't want to do the more radical thing that eric is proposing
14:37:59 <swh> JB-7
14:38:11 <swh> LeeF: response needs WG discussion
14:38:17 <swh> … ready to go
14:38:25 <swh> MS-7
14:38:26 <bglimm> I'll handle that
14:38:37 <bglimm> It's mainly clarifying an open question I had
14:38:51 <swh> DB-6
14:38:54 <bglimm> We had an editor's note in the document
14:39:08 <swh> kasei: everyone signed off on it yesterday
14:39:15 <swh> DB-5 - for Paul
14:39:36 <bglimm> MS-2 to MS-5 could be approved
14:39:41 <swh> MS-2..6
14:39:48 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
14:39:48 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
14:40:03 <swh> bglimm: I have to work on MS-6, but 2..5 could be sent
14:40:16 <LeeF> zakim, mute bglimm
14:40:16 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
14:40:32 <swh> LeeF: will mark 2-5 is responded, 6 open
14:42:41 <swh> XSLT change [?]
14:42:56 <swh> kasei: not part of the document, so we can change it
14:44:34 <swh> LeeF: one live perf change to XSLT doc, would like to change it
14:44:45 <swh> s/one live/one line/
14:44:47 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/result-to-html.xsl
14:45:06 <swh> sandro: we're not supposed to change anything under /TR
14:45:22 <swh> … if there's a good enough reason we could do
14:45:29 <swh> LeeF: I don't think it's a good enough reason
14:45:54 <swh> AndyS: I've had the same report from someone else
14:46:24 <swh> sandro: I'll forward this to the person who might be able to make the change
14:46:27 <LeeF> ACTION: Sandro to forward http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jul/0007 to the person who would make an exception to making the change in TR space
14:46:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-544 - Forward http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Jul/0007 to the person who would make an exception to making the change in TR space [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-11-08].
14:47:19 <AndyS> We've done this
14:47:26 <swh> re. CONSTRUCT WHERE
14:47:51 <swh> LeeF: we're going to decline to do anything additional
14:48:12 <swh> … could possibly be standardised in the future
14:48:35 <swh> AL-1
14:48:43 <swh> HTTP protocol
14:48:52 <swh> LeeF: will contact chime about that
14:49:27 <swh> IM-1, CB-3 - for chime
14:49:51 <swh> LC comments done
14:50:13 <swh> Pre-LC comments
14:50:39 <sandro> q+
14:51:03 <swh> RC-1,2 - LeeF will look at
14:51:24 <swh> DBeckett-1 - has a draft
14:51:34 <swh> from carlos?
14:51:57 <swh> cbuilara: I forgot to close the issue
14:52:07 <swh> … I will check and close
14:52:43 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:52:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see AndyS, cbuilara, LeeF, swh, sandro, MattPerry, kasei, bglimm (muted), alexpassant
14:54:13 <swh> FS-1 [?]
14:54:23 <swh> cbuilara: I think I sent a response
14:55:29 <LeeF> q?
14:55:39 <LeeF> ack sandro
14:56:01 <swh> sandro: followup q. on action, maybe put a redirect from /TR to WG space, where we can control it?
14:56:12 <swh> … would that break anything
14:56:15 <swh> AndyS: no
14:56:20 <swh> sandro: I'll propose that
14:56:29 <sandro> Can we redirect http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/result-to-html.xsl to WG space.
14:57:38 <swh> AndyS: I'll sort into things that have to be done, and things that should be done
14:57:46 <swh> LeeF: I can help write responses if you like
14:58:13 <swh> … I see 4 open ones next to you + [something]
14:58:20 <swh> … most of them can be dispatched easily
14:58:38 <swh> … ones in LC table that are yours are taken care of
14:58:53 <swh> … I don't think it's that bad
14:59:16 <swh> … AOB?
14:59:44 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/panel/
15:00:04 <bglimm> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:09 <Zakim> -alexpassant
15:00:11 <Zakim> -LeeF
15:00:11 <MattPerry> bye
15:00:16 <Zakim> -swh
15:00:17 <Zakim> -sandro
15:00:18 <Zakim> -MattPerry
15:00:23 <Zakim> -cbuilara
15:00:27 <sandro> LeeF, AndyS where in 2009/sparql should it go?
15:00:29 <Zakim> -kasei
15:00:30 <Zakim> -bglimm
15:00:38 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:00:39 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:00:41 <Zakim> Attendees were AndyS, cbuilara, LeeF, swh, sandro, MattPerry, kasei, bglimm, alexpassant
15:01:15 <AndyS> dajobe is just plain wrong.  He should at least idnetify what he's talking about --- what's an "output triple"
15:02:16 <kasei> agreed. not sure what his thought process is.
15:02:52 <AndyS> I suspect a case of "my impl is broken - you have to make sure it passes"
15:03:26 <AndyS> Shall I ask him for an example?
15:03:40 <kasei> yeah. the strange part is, I think the way everyone else uses his implementation (using rasqal *through* redland) means it's not broken for anyone but him.
15:03:53 <kasei> (and his test harness)
15:04:23 <AndyS> exactly.  He basically has a bug ... and it does back to his graph != set of triple from RDF years.
15:04:34 <AndyS> s/does/goes/
15:21:55 <kasei> perhaps asking for an example and then being able to push back on the specifics is best? (although the sha224 example was rather simple; hard to get more concise)
16:49:19 <ya> ASK { ?x a foaf:Agent . OPTIONAL { ?x bio:event ?y } . FILTER ( !BOUND(?y)) }   
16:49:23 <ya> but for some reason, it returns true even if the foaf:Agent does have a bio:event
16:49:27 <ya> do you know what could be the problem?
17:21:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sparql
17:58:12 <AndyS> ya, you need to use SELECT and look in the answers.  OPTIONAL/!bound is not identical to NOT EXISTS, it can be used to achieve the same thing. That's why SPARQL 1.1 adds FILTER NOT EXISTS
18:09:01 <ya> hmm ?
18:09:08 <ya> i dont use select, i can only use ASK
18:09:53 <ya> AndyS: can i not use optional/!bound with ASK ?
18:18:28 <ya> ?? :(
18:26:02 <alex> alex has joined #sparql
18:31:30 <ya> can anyone help me please? im desperate ;(