14:59:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sparql
14:59:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/12/13-sparql-irc
14:59:54 <LeeF> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:58 <LeeF> zakim, this is SPARQL
14:59:59 <swh> swh has joined #sparql
15:00:01 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
15:00:01 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
15:00:03 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
15:00:04 <LeeF> zakim, this is SPARQL
15:00:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start now
15:00:05 <trackbot> Date: 13 December 2011
15:00:07 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; that matches SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM
15:00:09 <kasei> Zakim, who is talking?
15:00:16 <cbuilara> zakim, who is on the phone
15:00:16 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', cbuilara
15:00:19 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone
15:00:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', AndyS
15:00:21 <trackbot> Sorry, LeeF, I don't understand 'trackbot, get with the program'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
15:00:21 <Zakim> kasei, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P10 (25%)
15:00:23 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.310.729.aaaa, [IPcaller], MattPerry, ??P10
15:00:36 <kasei> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:00:37 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:00:45 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P10 is me
15:00:46 <Zakim> +kasei; got it
15:00:47 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:00:51 <AndyS> zakim, go faster
15:00:53 <Zakim> +LeeF
15:00:55 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
15:01:01 <Zakim> I don't understand 'go faster', AndyS
15:01:32 <Zakim> +pgearon
15:01:33 <Zakim> +??P14
15:01:37 <Zakim> +??P17
15:01:43 <swh> hm, one of those is me...
15:01:52 <Zakim> +sandro
15:02:10 <swh> Zakim, ??P17 is me
15:02:11 <Zakim> +swh; got it
15:02:31 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei, AndyS, MattPerry, cbuilara, LeeF, pgearon, ??P14, swh, sandro
15:02:37 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
15:03:03 <LeeF> zakim, ??P14 is Olivier_
15:03:03 <Zakim> +Olivier_; got it
15:03:29 <LeeF> Regrets: AxelPolleres, chimezie, bglimm
15:04:38 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
15:04:43 <LeeF> zakim, pick a scribe, please
15:04:43 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Olivier_
15:04:54 <LeeF> scribenick: Olivier_
15:05:20 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-06
15:06:14 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-12-06
15:06:29 <LeeF> next week's meeting is 12/20 at 10:00am EST
15:06:46 <swh> I'm at risk for next week
15:06:49 <pgearon> +q
15:06:57 <LeeF> ack ??P17
15:06:59 <LeeF> ack pgearon
15:07:15 <LeeF> pgearon: at risk next week
15:07:52 <LeeF> LeeF: next week we will be voting on most documents publication, let me know if you won't be here
15:08:04 <pgearon> q-
15:09:02 <LeeF> www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PostLastCall
15:09:08 <LeeF> topic: query
15:10:39 <kasei> q+
15:10:59 <Olivier_> Some small text changes still needed, minor changes
15:11:27 <bglimm> Sorry for only being on IRC. I just wanted to mention that my part1 has all been addressed and I hope to send part 2 tonight
15:11:48 <AndyS> birte, great, thanks
15:11:50 <LeeF> ack kasei
15:11:50 <bglimm> Talking about the Query review in case that wasn't clear
15:11:53 <swh> q+
15:12:10 <Olivier_> Reread aggregate section needed ?
15:12:43 <bglimm> I read the aggregate section again and I am mostly happy (some minor comments)
15:12:48 <LeeF> ack swh
15:13:20 <Olivier_> Concerns exist about aggregate section
15:15:25 <Olivier_> Include a note about it 
15:15:53 <AndyS> LeeF: Will buy everyone a beer if there is a serious bug in aggregates
15:16:06 <Olivier_> We may publish it as LC next week
15:16:19 <sandro> sandro: It might be good to include a note like, "This algebra has not yet been thoroughly reviewed.  If you think you found a mistake, please send in a comment."
15:16:21 <LeeF> LeeF: birte to get in her review tonight, andy and steve to address points, group to decide on query LC2 next week
15:16:43 <LeeF> topic: Entailment
15:17:17 <bglimm> Markus review is addressed and I am awaiting Axel's
15:17:32 <LeeF> bglimm, Axel's review was sent 2 days ago
15:17:40 <LeeF> have you had a chance to look at it yet?
15:17:46 <bglimm> Ups, then I overlooked it. Will check again
15:17:54 <bglimm> No, I didn't see it
15:18:00 <LeeF> Here's the link: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0338.html
15:18:18 <LeeF> If you could take a quick look  and let us know if it looks manageable to resolve these comments this week, that would be great
15:18:24 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:18:30 <bglimm> I only saw a question about synchronising the wording between Query and Ent. Reg. regarding the conditions (E-consitency etc)
15:18:49 <LeeF> topic: Update
15:18:51 <Zakim> +??P1
15:18:57 <AndyS> zakim, ??P1 is me
15:18:57 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:19:46 <Zakim> -MattPerry
15:20:01 <LeeF> pgearon: working through the 2nd half of Matt's review
15:20:04 <Olivier_> Some minor changes still needed
15:20:06 <LeeF> LeeF: please check if there is anything non-editorial
15:20:07 <bglimm> Seems all managable
15:20:09 <Zakim> +MattPerry
15:20:28 <bglimm> I'll have Ent. Reg. ready next week then
15:20:34 <LeeF> MattPerry: mainly editorial - one thing was a clarification of words of SHOULD/MUST 
15:20:48 <pgearon> just finished looking, and it's all fine
15:21:14 <LeeF> LeeF: pgearon to finish matt's review shortly and matt to review the changes to see if OK to publish
15:21:34 <LeeF> topic: service description
15:22:08 <LeeF> LeeF: chimezie sent his review last week, what's outstanding?
15:22:15 <LeeF> kasei: remaining issue is wording on property feature
15:23:12 <Olivier_> Some open issues
15:23:20 <Olivier_> not substantive
15:25:28 <LeeF> LeeF: for property features, suggest changing to "Relates an instance of sd:Service to a resource representing an implemented feature that extends the SPARQL Query or Update language and that is accessed by using the named property."
15:27:05 <Olivier_> It may be published next week
15:27:33 <Olivier_> topic: graph protocol
15:27:33 <LeeF> topic: graph store protocol
15:27:41 <LeeF> LeeF: sandro, do you have anything to add beyond what's in email?
15:27:50 <LeeF> sandro: not much; probably OK with most things but concerned with POST being append
15:28:19 <LeeF> sandro: the question here is what should happen if you POST to a graph resource
15:28:28 <LeeF> ... in general in REST, that's up in the air - you send a message to the thing and what happens depends on the thing
15:28:47 <LeeF> ... if the thing is a piece of a SPARQL database, saying that a reasonable thing to do is append to the graph seems ok
15:29:06 <LeeF> ... at linked enterprise workshop, people are using RDF and REST with other applications / data models
15:29:13 <LeeF> ... there are a lot of other things that you might want to do
15:29:27 <LeeF> ... so i'd like to keep POST open - give the ability to POST a message to something asking it to do something
15:29:32 <kasei> q+
15:29:33 <LeeF> ... can always append with PATCH
15:29:41 <LeeF> ... suggest we back off on this specification
15:29:51 <LeeF> ... recognize problems with PATCH - it's new, not implemented by IE9 (from JavaScript)
15:29:57 <LeeF> ack kasei
15:30:30 <LeeF> kasei: worried about making this change because we explicitly went through this and made PATCH informative because we were worried about the newness/widespread support with PATCH, and thought we had consensus on POST as append
15:30:53 <LeeF> sandro: i supporeted that, but 2 new bits of information
15:31:04 <LeeF> ... 1) people using this with things other than RDF store
15:31:09 <LeeF> ... 2) people at workshop happy with using PATCH
15:33:13 <LeeF> LeeF: steve, do you implement POST to a graph?
15:33:16 <LeeF> swh: yes, it's append for us
15:33:32 <LeeF> LeeF: sandro, the IBM implementation handles POST to a collection, not a graph, right?
15:33:50 <LeeF> sandro: yes, i'm thinking about the implications of that general idea extended to POSTing to graph
15:33:58 <LeeF> sandro: steve, would you have problems changing to using PATCH for append?
15:34:00 <kasei> PATCH seems pretty underspecified in the document right now. I assume this would require a big change to the document from its current state...?
15:34:14 <LeeF> swh: not enthusiastic about it given lack of support in HTTP libraries and need to change existing code
15:35:50 <LeeF> AndyS: I believe that PATCH is the open-ended one, lets you send any sort of change to a resource, not just append
15:37:31 <LeeF> sandro: will think about this & see if there is a more compelling argument by next week
15:38:06 <LeeF> sandro: ...a collection is also a graph
15:38:20 <LeeF> sandro: ...so POST to that particular graph means something different
15:38:28 <LeeF> AndyS: Where is that specified?
15:46:11 <sandro> sandro: I think this protocol does or should apply to RDF+REST everywhere -- not just being SPARQL.    And collections should be a kind of graph.
15:47:18 <sandro> sandro: so POST to collecition (a kind of graph) is different from POST to other graphs?  
15:49:53 <sandro> "Protocol enhancements for update. The group will also define protocol to update RDF graphs using ReSTful methods. "
15:50:21 <sandro> from http://www.w3.org/2011/05/sparql-charter
15:50:32 <AndyS> AndyS: I see no evidence presented that a collection IS a graph.  It may have a partial representation as a graph (c.f. RDFa)
15:50:36 <LeeF> LeeF: Suggestion is to ask Sandro to produce a proposed change and decide on it next week; also happy to facilitate an out-of-band discussion between now and then for interested parties
15:50:40 <sandro> sandro: If that's what we're doing here, I think we need to keep in mind the bigger picture, beyond just SPARQL.
15:51:19 <sandro> LeeF: Anyone on the call interested in joining a call on this?
15:51:34 <sandro> Lee: Sandro, Andy, Lee, Steve... anyone else?
15:52:27 <sandro> kasei: I'm with Andy in being kind of horrified that the SD is returned on a GET from the GraphStore
15:53:09 <sandro> kasei: I don't know how we got to there
15:53:23 <AndyS> There is an example of GET on the graph store URI in the POST section.
15:54:56 <sandro> kasei: The text seems to say you should return the SD *even if* the GraphStore doesn't implement SPARQL.
15:55:54 <LeeF> LeeF: need to discuss 5.8 of GSP -- Lee, Andy, kasei are surprised and worried about what's there
15:57:11 <kasei> the graph store protocol document also seems to suggest that SD be returned from an OPTIONS requests, which also might deserve its own discussion.
15:57:16 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to try to organize a conversation on POSTing to a graph this week
15:57:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-571 - Try to organize a conversation on POSTing to a graph this week [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2011-12-20].
15:57:59 <LeeF> topic: Protocol
15:58:06 <LeeF> LeeF: remaining issues are editorial, specifically cleaning up references
15:59:32 <Zakim> -LeeF
15:59:33 <Zakim> -sandro
15:59:34 <Zakim> -swh
15:59:35 <Zakim> -MattPerry
15:59:38 <Zakim> -pgearon
15:59:39 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:59:40 <Zakim> -kasei
15:59:41 <Zakim> -Olivier_
15:59:42 <LeeF> LeeF: decide on most documents next week - please let me know if you won't be here
15:59:42 <Zakim> -cbuilara
15:59:43 <LeeF> Adjourned.
15:59:44 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
15:59:46 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.310.729.aaaa, MattPerry, kasei, AndyS, LeeF, cbuilara, pgearon, sandro, swh, Olivier_
16:01:03 <AndyS> AndyS has left #sparql
16:21:29 <AndyS> LeeF - transport endpoint -- you mean http://services.data.gov.uk/transport/sparql ?
16:23:56 <LeeF> AndyS, maybe, checking :-)
16:24:07 <LeeF> no, but let me try that one
16:24:36 <AndyS> IIRC There are 2+ hosted copies.  Which one did you use?
16:24:46 <LeeF> AndyS, i meant choosing "transportation" from the drop-down at http://data.gov.uk/sparql
16:25:30 <LeeF> the one you gave me gives a similarly empty response to my apparently broken / bit rotten query :-)
16:25:40 <LeeF> basically, i have a query in my tutorial that used to work, and now doesn't return any results
16:25:49 <LeeF> and was trying to short-circuit the process of debugging it by asking those in the know :)
16:26:27 <AndyS> They are the same actually.
16:26:53 <LeeF> ah ok
16:27:09 <LeeF> this query used to work but now returns no results:
16:27:10 <LeeF> PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
16:27:10 <LeeF> PREFIX roads: <http://transport.data.gov.uk/0/ontology/roads#>
16:27:10 <LeeF> SELECT ?cat_name (COUNT(DISTINCT ?thing) AS ?roads)
16:27:10 <LeeF> WHERE {
16:27:10 <LeeF>    ?thing  a roads:Road ; roads:category ?cat .
16:27:11 <LeeF>    ?cat skos:prefLabel ?cat_name
16:27:14 <LeeF> }
16:27:15 <LeeF> GROUP BY ?cat_name
16:27:18 <LeeF> and not sure what in particular changed...
16:30:17 <AndyS> I see no roads:Road
16:30:56 <LeeF> right... so question is whether there is something that replaced it, or moved, or what
16:31:09 <LeeF> i tried to do a general query for the rdf:types in the dataset, but it timed out for me
16:32:05 <AndyS> The endpoint is run by Talis - you can ask on IRC freenode #talis (or maybe #kasabi)  The time out is the platofmr's 30s time out but try LIMIT / OFFSET for slicing which might help.
16:35:18 <AndyS> Their should be a dump somewhere close.  I can't the ontology either to check URIs.  Bad LD.
16:35:33 <LeeF> thanks very much, Andy!
16:35:46 <AndyS> SELECT * { ?s <http://jena.hpl.hp.com/ARQ/property:version> ?y } works :-)
16:36:31 <AndyS> Some SPARQL 1.1 features are turned off IIRC (to stop accidental DOS-isms).
16:36:53 <AndyS> Did the query once work?
16:41:09 <AndyS> Ah - see it did.
16:41:29 <AndyS> I'm not in the know but I know who to ask ... 
16:43:11 <AndyS> I do know what code it being run .. but the data?  A bit above my level of the stack.
16:43:43 <LeeF> :-)
16:43:53 <LeeF> would you be able to point me to who to ask about the data?
16:47:13 <AndyS> beobal (Sam Tunnicliffe - head of platform team at Talis) - we're on freenode #jena talking about it 
16:51:20 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #sparql
16:51:34 <LeeF> having trouble connecting to freenode for some reason
16:52:09 <AndyS> That's freenode.  It's free and
17:21:38 <bglimm> bglimm has joined #sparql
17:32:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #sparql
17:56:05 <bglimm>  SteveH, are you still on IRC?
17:56:36 <SteveH> hi bglimm, yeah
17:56:47 <bglimm> What did Olivier mean with 
17:56:47 <bglimm> Olivier_: Concerns exist about aggregate section
17:56:47 <bglimm> [15:15] Olivier_: Include a note about it
17:57:18 <bglimm> I more or less finished reading the algebra and don't see major problems
17:57:25 <bglimm> am I overlooking something?
17:57:50 <bglimm> Is that refering to the agg_i issue that also Andy pointed out in his email?
17:58:24 <bglimm> E.g., what happens if a user uses ?agg1 in the query?
18:13:35 <SteveH> bglimm, yes, just that conversation between you and Andy
18:13:42 <bglimm> ok
18:13:44 <SteveH> bglimm, nothing new
18:14:15 <bglimm> I was worried that there is something new since the scribe wasn't to informative
18:14:24 <bglimm> s/to/too/
18:16:41 <SteveH> yeah, sure
19:53:18 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #sparql
20:36:48 <AndyS> LeeF - did you get to the bottom of the cause of the lack of results of your query?
20:37:42 <LeeF> *just* this sec found time to start looking at it again
20:37:49 <LeeF> basically just looks like totally different data then it used to be
20:55:33 <AndyS> A small difference esp. if it wasn't reloaded.  I did see they are running a customized ARQ 
20:56:12 <AndyS> ... which looks mildly recent.  But the mod (which is now in the codebase) is only for "order by" according to the logs.
22:48:48 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #sparql