15:01:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
15:01:08 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/06-sparql-irc
15:01:09 <chimezie> chimezie has joined #sparql
15:01:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:01:12 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
15:01:13 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
15:01:13 <trackbot> Date: 06 December 2011
15:01:15 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:01:16 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
15:01:20 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as ??P15, cbuilara
15:01:24 <chimezie> Zakim, what is the passcode?
15:01:24 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), chimezie
15:01:39 <AndyS> carlos - bad noise!
15:01:52 <LeeF> Regrets - i'm at the w3c linked enterprise data workshop, will try to keep an eye on IRC here though
15:02:11 <AxelPolleres> chair: Axel
15:02:11 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:11 <Zakim> I notice SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has restarted
15:02:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, AndyS, MattPerry, Olivier, +3517073aaaa, chimezie
15:02:25 <Zakim> +??P30
15:02:28 <kasei> Zakim, pick LeeF as a victim when he's not looking.
15:02:28 <Zakim> I don't understand you, kasei
15:02:30 <AndyS> pgearon?
15:02:30 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P30 is me
15:02:30 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
15:02:31 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, AndyS, MattPerry, Olivier, +3517073aaaa, chimezie, cbuilara
15:02:51 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, aaa is probably me
15:02:51 <Zakim> sorry, AxelPolleres, I do not understand your question
15:03:06 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, aaaa is probably me
15:03:06 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres?; got it
15:03:15 <Zakim> +pgearon
15:03:35 <AxelPolleres> scribe: paul gearon
15:03:52 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-12-06
15:04:07 <AxelPolleres> topic: agenda
15:04:10 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-11-29
15:04:37 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-11-29
15:05:04 <AxelPolleres> probably regrets from me next week
15:05:43 <pgearon> member:identifier:axelpolleres: scribe for next week scheduled to be Birte or Olivier?
15:06:14 <Zakim> +??P34
15:06:16 <AxelPolleres> topic: RDF liaison
15:06:20 <swh> Zakim, ??p34 is me
15:06:21 <Zakim> +swh; got it
15:06:51 <pgearon> AndyS: RDF WG working on prefix names. This is on the agenda to discuss
15:07:16 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: schedule is dangerously tight. Appeal to editors
15:07:21 <pgearon> topic: Query
15:07:45 <AxelPolleres> review birte addressed
15:08:15 <pgearon> AndyS: editorial matters all done. Escape sequences to sort out. Aggregates in email, and Steve to sort out
15:08:34 <iv_an_ru> iv_an_ru has joined #sparql
15:08:46 <pgearon> SteveH: stuff around pseudocode for aggregation still to be sorted, but other than that all under control
15:09:17 <pgearon> SteveH: likely to vote on publishing by next week
15:09:29 <pgearon> SteveH: if not by next week then it won't be this year
15:09:56 <AxelPolleres> aim at resolution to publish next week, pleeeease. :-)
15:10:11 <pgearon> AndyS: has some follow through to do after SteveH, so needs to hear from Steve as soon as aggregates are finished
15:11:18 <AxelPolleres> steve: birte and Andy please go over the pseudocode for aggregates again.
15:12:02 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: SteveH please send email to AndyS and Birte as soon as appropriate
15:12:06 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
15:12:06 <Zakim> chimezie was not muted, chimezie
15:12:19 <AxelPolleres> topic: graph store protocol
15:12:22 <pgearon> topic: graph store protocol
15:12:49 <pgearon> chimezie: gone through most of the emails and updated.
15:13:23 <AxelPolleres> question about multi-part PUT 
15:13:26 <pgearon> chimezie: Thinks said something inappropriate about mutipart in an email to Ivan. Should this be addressed in a followup email?
15:13:52 <AxelPolleres> Andy: he might have meant POST anyways (talks about forms)
15:13:58 <pgearon> AndyS: Ivan mentioned PUT, but on re-reading thinks that he meant POST since it referred to forms
15:14:30 <pgearon> AndyS: SteveH - do you know if multipart PUT exists in the wild?
15:14:37 <pgearon> SteveH: doesn't think do
15:14:43 <pgearon> s/do/so/
15:15:00 <pgearon> chimezie: expect to be ready next week to go forward
15:15:46 <pgearon> chimezie: made all modifications per the reviews, and don't have anything outstanding. Some comments may elicit responses, and may need to wait on these
15:16:21 <pgearon> chimezie: will send email to say that actions 563 and 564 were completed
15:17:01 <kasei> I'm also holding off on a final run-through of the aggregates code.
15:17:09 <pgearon> AndyS: outstanding review on Query is from Birte on aggregates and she is working on that
15:17:40 <pgearon> topic: service description document
15:18:00 <chimezie> My review is done, just need to verify some links in SD doc and plan to send off before end of telecon or soon after
15:18:27 <pgearon> chimezie: about to send a service description review
15:18:49 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: expect to vote on this next week
15:18:59 <pgearon> topic: entailment document
15:19:23 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: still reviewing this myself. Should finish by today or tomorrow
15:19:29 <AxelPolleres> axel: review for entailment still open, don't expect critical issues
15:19:58 <AxelPolleres> topic: update
15:20:11 <AxelPolleres> paul: I am going over MAtt's review this afternoon.
15:20:24 <AxelPolleres> ... doc is ready to vote apart from that.
15:20:43 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
15:20:44 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
15:20:45 <pgearon> topic: protocol document
15:20:58 <pgearon> kasei: were there any recent reviews?
15:21:20 <AxelPolleres> LeeF, is  protocol ready for vote?
15:21:46 <AxelPolleres> greg: I will clean up references during this week.
15:21:49 <pgearon> kasei: needs to clean up bibliography and citations throughout the document. Will be done this week.
15:22:10 <AxelPolleres> we'll see whther the doc is ready for vote in a week as well.
15:22:37 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: results format quasi-ready for vote
15:22:44 <AxelPolleres> topic: other issues
15:23:10 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:DB-11a
15:23:27 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: 2 test cases that need approval for answering a comment DB-11a and draft response.
15:23:55 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: approve test cases http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/bind/manifest#bind10 and http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/bind/manifest#bind11
15:24:04 <kasei> +1
15:24:08 <AndyS> +1
15:24:15 <cbuilara> +1
15:24:28 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: approve test cases http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/bind/manifest#bind10 and http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/data-sparql11/bind/manifest#bind11
15:25:25 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: go ahead on sending the response
15:25:55 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: mark approved test cases after the call
15:25:55 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - mark
15:26:06 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to mark approved test cases after the call
15:26:07 <trackbot> Created ACTION-567 - Mark approved test cases after the call [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-12-13].
15:26:42 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: Birte's email on wanting IRI for OWL Full profile
15:26:43 <chimezie> Zakim, who is here?
15:26:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, AndyS, MattPerry, Olivier, AxelPolleres?, chimezie (muted), cbuilara, pgearon, swh
15:26:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see iv_an_ru, chimezie, RRSAgent, AxelPolleres, MattPerry, Zakim, swh, cbuilara, MacTed, Olivier_, LeeF, AndyS, SteveH, pgearon, trackbot, NickH, ya, ericP, sandro, kasei
15:26:46 <AndyS> Ivan said "done"
15:26:48 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0293.html
15:27:51 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: AndyS proposal to modify grammar for prefixes
15:28:25 <pgearon> AndyS: last week's RDF WG call voted to accept character escapes in prefix names
15:29:00 <AxelPolleres> rationale is e.g. generated URIs or facebook's graph protocol
15:29:20 <pgearon> AndyS: justified because open graph protocol from Facebook uses colons, and some others use =
15:29:36 <pgearon> AndyS: part 2 - to and fro around % encoding
15:30:14 <pgearon> AndyS: proposal to add %HEXHEX in local part of names
15:30:44 <pgearon> AndyS: neither of these are any more than changes to tokenizing. Test code didn't break anything
15:31:11 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: proposal to add these changes marked as "At Risk"
15:31:44 <pgearon> AndyS: first one is almost certain. Less certain about the second, but thinks it is very likely
15:32:35 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_ (token: PN_LOCAL); i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) - 
15:32:48 <AndyS> seconded
15:32:59 <kasei> +q
15:33:28 <AxelPolleres> greg: PN_LOCAL is also used for bnode labels
15:33:57 <pgearon> AndyS: not proposing to change blank nodes. Thanks for catching that
15:34:03 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_  i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) -
15:34:51 <AxelPolleres> +1
15:34:54 <pgearon> +1
15:35:04 <kasei> -q
15:35:11 <AndyS> seconded
15:35:26 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow the set of character escapes for the local part of prefix names is ~.-!$&'()*+,;=:/?#@%_  i.e., the set of URI-legal, non-alphanumerics (path, query and fragment) -
15:35:45 <AxelPolleres> (3 seconded, no abstentions or objections)
15:35:54 <pgearon> AndyS: will communicate back to the RDF WG editors what we've done
15:36:24 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow character sequences of the form "% HEX HEX" in the local part of prefixed names.
15:36:40 <AndyS> seconded
15:36:42 <AxelPolleres> +1
15:36:46 <pgearon> +1
15:36:59 <MattPerry> +1
15:37:08 <AxelPolleres> +1
15:37:13 <cbuilara> +1
15:37:19 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED: As an AT-RISK change to the current grammar we allow character sequences of the form "% HEX HEX" in the local part of prefixed names.
15:37:50 <AxelPolleres> (7 seconded, no abstentions, no objections)
15:38:05 <pgearon> AndyS: noting that this means you can't reverse URIs into IRIs reliably
15:38:14 <pgearon> +q
15:38:16 <AndyS> ... which is an RFC issue 
15:39:10 <pgearon> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RC-4
15:39:37 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Dec/0007.html
15:42:40 <AxelPolleres> Paul: reading richard's response, he seems unsatisfied tht someone can obfuscate an update command, however, if someone has permissions to do the update, then it doesn't matter whether this is obfuscated or not.
15:42:55 <AxelPolleres> ... so I don't consider that a security issue
15:43:50 <kasei> q+
15:44:00 <AxelPolleres> Andy: WG by charter has a strong hint not to do changes that affect SPARQL1.0, that's what we should answer.
15:45:17 <AxelPolleres> q+
15:46:06 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask whether we could not simply address this by adding his example to the Appendix on Security?
15:46:11 <pgearon> kasei: don't think Richard is asking for changes to SPARQL 1.0 queries, only wants SPARQL 1.1 to be updated
15:46:19 <pgearon> +q
15:46:29 <AxelPolleres> ... so not necessarily a bw-compatibility issue
15:47:10 <AxelPolleres> Paul: i agree, but I prefer to keep the update and query grammars close.
15:48:23 <LeeF> In other cases we've called small changes to SPARQL 1.0 a "bug fix" - I think if we all feel that Richard has a valid point that it's reasonable to do the same thing here
15:49:07 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: suggest adding a sentence in Security Considerations that mentions this, but we don't want to change the grammar
15:50:06 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Paul to draft a reply along these lines and put a sentence into the Update  Appendix on Sec. Considerations.
15:50:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-568 - Draft a reply along these lines and put a sentence into the Update  Appendix on Sec. Considerations. [on Paul Gearon - due 2011-12-13].
15:50:18 <pgearon> I will put a sentence into the Update document security section, and will draft a response describing this
15:50:43 <pgearon> topic: schedule
15:50:48 <AndyS> AndyS: No technical barriers but impact on schedule.
15:50:59 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: insisting that we publish by Christmas or over Christmas
15:51:56 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: want to publish CVS and TSV docs by Mid February
15:52:05 <pgearon> get everything to PR by April
15:52:14 <pgearon> s/PR/CR/
15:52:39 <AndyS> q+ to ask what is the min CR if we did a CR
15:52:49 <kasei> q-
15:52:59 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: could get us to rec by end of June, but will be tight
15:52:59 <AxelPolleres> q-
15:53:28 <pgearon> AndyS: minimum LC period is 3 weeks. Wondering what minimum CR period is?
15:54:48 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to check with Lee and sandro about CR minimum comments period, and also about standard text we could put into LCs that might NOT go through CR. "this doc has already implementations as follows and might go directly to PR... "
15:54:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-569 - Check with Lee and sandro about CR minimum comments period, and also about standard text we could put into LCs that might NOT go through CR. "this doc has already implementations as follows and might go directly to PR... " [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-12-13].
15:55:44 <pgearon> AxelPolleres: one last point on service description review, re RFC wording of MUST SHOULD and MAIN
15:55:52 <pgearon> s/MAIN/MAY/
15:55:58 <pgearon> +q
15:56:06 <AndyS> ack me
15:56:07 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask what is the min CR if we did a CR
15:56:13 <kasei> q+
15:56:53 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to check RFC wording for MUST SHOULD, MAY across docs.
15:56:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-570 - Check RFC wording for MUST SHOULD, MAY across docs. [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-12-13].
15:57:26 <pgearon> q-
15:58:41 <AxelPolleres> ACTION-570: suggestion is to standardize on the <rfc2119> tag
15:58:41 <trackbot> ACTION-570 Check RFC wording for MUST SHOULD, MAY across docs. notes added
15:59:06 <kasei> q-
15:59:07 <pgearon> kasei: suggests working with the rfc2119 tag as well
15:59:13 <Zakim> -MattPerry
15:59:17 <Zakim> -chimezie
15:59:17 <chimezie> bye
15:59:19 <MattPerry> \quit
15:59:20 <AxelPolleres> adjourned
15:59:22 <Zakim> -cbuilara
15:59:23 <Zakim> -swh
15:59:26 <Zakim> -kasei
15:59:28 <Zakim> -pgearon
15:59:29 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
15:59:32 <Zakim> -Olivier
15:59:45 <AndyS> swh - did you want to talk?
15:59:50 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres?
15:59:52 <AndyS> SteveH - did you want to talk?
16:00:33 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:00:34 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
16:00:36 <Zakim> Attendees were kasei, AndyS, MattPerry, Olivier, +3517073aaaa, chimezie, cbuilara, AxelPolleres?, pgearon, swh
16:01:45 <pgearon> e.g.  <!ENTITY MUST "<rfc2119>MUST</rfc2119>">
16:02:22 <kasei> yeah. I think I'm the only one actually using them, though.
16:02:25 <AxelPolleres> I still sw some different formattings when checking quickly,will just have a quick look over...
16:02:34 <AxelPolleres> ok, that explains it :-)
16:03:02 <pgearon> yes, I'm just looking at the service description doc. Was about to check some others  :-)
16:03:03 <kasei> well, it may explain it. formatting would be the same whether you used the entity or directly wrote <rfc2119>MUST</rfc2119>
16:03:25 <pgearon> if the entities are there, then it seems silly not to be using them
16:04:45 <pgearon> the entities are currently in: entailment federation, json-results, property-paths, query, service description, sparql11 overview, and update
16:05:18 <pgearon> though some of these docs only have one or two of the entities in them, rather than all of them
16:12:33 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has left #sparql
16:14:51 <domel> domel has joined #sparql
17:11:21 <swh> swh has joined #sparql
17:11:27 <swh> swh has left #sparql
17:46:49 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #sparql
18:15:53 <iv_an_ru> iv_an_ru has joined #sparql
18:27:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sparql