<LeeF> Present: LeeF, AndyS, Chimezie, john-l, pgearon, kasei, EricP, Orri, SteveH, LukeWM, Prateek, Birte, SimonS, ivanh, Alex, Kjetil, Axel
13:56:15 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:56:16 <trackbot> Date: 02 June 2009
Trackbot IRC Bot: Date: 02 June 2009 ←
14:01:09 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:01:14 <LeeF> Scribenick: Chimezie
(Scribe set to Chimezie Ogbuji)
14:07:11 <chimezie> Topic: Admin
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
14:06:54 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-06-02
14:07:15 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-26
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-26 ←
14:07:26 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
14:07:42 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-26
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-05-26 ←
14:08:15 <AlexPassant> indeed :)
Alexandre Passant: indeed :) ←
14:08:21 <chimezie> LeeF: Others able to make next meeting?
Lee Feigenbaum: Others able to make next meeting? ←
14:08:35 <kasei> I'll be travelling next week. Will probably make it, but possibly not.
Gregory Williams: I'll be travelling next week. Will probably make it, but possibly not. ←
14:08:42 <LeeF> regrets next week: ivanh, AlexPassant
Lee Feigenbaum: regrets next week: ivanh, AlexPassant ←
14:09:09 <LeeF> scribe next week: Yimin (Kjetil on deck)
Lee Feigenbaum: scribe next week: Yimin (Kjetil on deck) ←
14:09:58 <chimezie> LeeF: No significant progress on actions/issues to warrant going over
Lee Feigenbaum: No significant progress on actions/issues to warrant going over ←
14:10:10 <pgearon> +q
Paula Gearon: +q ←
14:10:11 <chimezie> ... sent an email with outline for progress
... sent an email with outline for progress ←
14:10:21 <chimezie> ... reach concensus on update and how to scope/phase it
... reach concensus on update and how to scope/phase it ←
14:10:50 <KjetilK> q+
Kjetil Kjernsmo: q+ ←
14:11:11 <KjetilK> ack pgearon
Kjetil Kjernsmo: ack pgearon ←
14:11:41 <pgearon> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/22
Paula Gearon: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/22 ←
14:11:49 <chimezie> KjetilK: Nothing written up for ACTION item #22 (issues with subqueries and ??HAVING?? clause)
Kjetil Kjernsmo: Nothing written up for ACTION item #22 (issues with subqueries and ??HAVING?? clause) ←
14:12:04 <LeeF> ACTION-22: pgearon unable to find any queries with an issue
Lee Feigenbaum: ACTION-22: pgearon unable to find any queries with an issue ←
14:12:04 <trackbot> ACTION-22 Write a subquery to be executed in a having clause that causes execution order problems for the list notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-22 Write a subquery to be executed in a having clause that causes execution order problems for the list notes added ←
14:12:05 <chimezie> ... no red flags. Anyone else see issue with this
... no red flags. Anyone else see issue with this ←
14:12:32 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-22
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-22 ←
14:12:33 <trackbot> ACTION-22 Write a subquery to be executed in a having clause that causes execution order problems for the list closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-22 Write a subquery to be executed in a having clause that causes execution order problems for the list closed ←
14:12:52 <LeeF> ack kjetilk
Lee Feigenbaum: ack kjetilk ←
14:13:18 <chimezie> Kjetil: It is a bit difficult to write queries for aggregate functions. Should we discuss this soon?
Kjetil Kjernsmo: It is a bit difficult to write queries for aggregate functions. Should we discuss this soon? ←
14:13:25 <chimezie> ... (which aggregate functions will we do)
... (which aggregate functions will we do) ←
14:13:39 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:13:44 <chimezie> LeeF: To early to resolve which aggregates we will use
Lee Feigenbaum: To early to resolve which aggregates we will use ←
14:13:59 <chimezie> ... best to write a general description of ability in features document
... best to write a general description of ability in features document ←
14:14:46 <chimezie> Orri: we already have user-specified aggregates
Orri Erling: we already have user-specified aggregates ←
14:15:14 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:15:16 <chimezie> AndyS: will it help to pick one we are certain to do?
Andy Seaborne: will it help to pick one we are certain to do? ←
14:15:27 <chimezie> kjetil: That would be helpful, yes
Kjetil Kjernsmo: That would be helpful, yes ←
14:16:03 <AndyS> If we don't do COUNT(*), I will be very surprised.
Andy Seaborne: If we don't do COUNT(*), I will be very surprised. ←
14:16:07 <AxelPolleres> I agree that "count" is safe enough and we just mention that this is just one example
Axel Polleres: I agree that "count" is safe enough and we just mention that this is just one example ←
14:17:15 <chimezie> LeeF: Features & rational document goal is still to have a first draft by next week
Lee Feigenbaum: Features & rational document goal is still to have a first draft by next week ←
14:17:55 <chimezie> ... WD is a necessary first step
... WD is a necessary first step ←
14:18:28 <AxelPolleres> LeeF: FPWD of F&R is a necessary step in the ongoing re-chartering process.
Lee Feigenbaum: FPWD of F&R is a necessary step in the ongoing re-chartering process. [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:18:48 <chimezie> Kjetil: First working draft should be bad enough to 'scare' out comments
Kjetil Kjernsmo: First working draft should be bad enough to 'scare' out comments ←
14:19:56 <chimezie> Topic: Update
14:20:27 <chimezie> LeeF: Last week was focused on usecases, this week we should go over concrete proposals
Lee Feigenbaum: Last week was focused on usecases, this week we should go over concrete proposals ←
14:21:03 <chimezie> ... spectrum from update language (proper) - with and without WHERE clause
... spectrum from update language (proper) - with and without WHERE clause ←
14:21:15 <chimezie> ... to usecases that are aware of a proper RDF dataset
... to usecases that are aware of a proper RDF dataset ←
14:21:49 <chimezie> ... not much support for single-graph update language. Support for direct HTTP interaction with SPARQL service (PUT/POST, etc..)
... not much support for single-graph update language. Support for direct HTTP interaction with SPARQL service (PUT/POST, etc..) ←
14:22:43 <chimezie> ... support for protocol take update query strings via various HTTP verbs
... support for protocol take update query strings via various HTTP verbs ←
14:23:38 <AndyS> Good summary
Andy Seaborne: Good summary ←
14:23:57 <chimezie> LeeF: rough consensus on doing these things, but worrysome if we do all
Lee Feigenbaum: rough consensus on doing these things, but worrysome if we do all ←
14:24:27 <SteveH> q+ to talk about +/- WHERE
Steve Harris: q+ to talk about +/- WHERE ←
14:24:50 <AndyS> ack SteveH
Andy Seaborne: ack SteveH ←
14:24:50 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to talk about +/- WHERE
Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH, you wanted to talk about +/- WHERE ←
14:25:15 <chimezie> SteveH: although usecases require WHERE, this is something we can drop using ASK queries initially prior to an update operation
Steve Harris: although usecases require WHERE, this is something we can drop using ASK queries initially prior to an update operation ←
14:25:25 <AndyS> (bnodes)
Andy Seaborne: (bnodes) ←
14:25:41 <chimezie> LeeF: Including WHERE in UL gives ability determine conditions on update
Lee Feigenbaum: Including WHERE in UL gives ability determine conditions on update ←
14:25:50 <KjetilK> q+ to ask about DELETE
Kjetil Kjernsmo: q+ to ask about DELETE ←
14:26:02 <LukeWM> q+ to ask about doing less in language & more in protocol
Luke Wilson-Mawer: q+ to ask about doing less in language & more in protocol ←
14:26:38 <LeeF> ack kjetil
Lee Feigenbaum: ack kjetil ←
14:26:38 <Zakim> KjetilK, you wanted to ask about DELETE
Zakim IRC Bot: KjetilK, you wanted to ask about DELETE ←
14:26:41 <chimezie> AndyS: Might end up codifying weird URI schemes to handle BnNodes
Andy Seaborne: Might end up codifying weird URI schemes to handle BnNodes ←
14:26:54 <chimezie> kjetil: we can do most of what we need now w/out WHERE support in UL (update language)
Kjetil Kjernsmo: we can do most of what we need now w/out WHERE support in UL (update language) ←
14:27:01 <AxelPolleres> q+to ask whether steve meant with intermediate COSNTRUCTing temporary graphs?
Axel Polleres: q+to ask whether steve meant with intermediate COSNTRUCTing temporary graphs? ←
14:27:06 <chimezie> ... not sure how we can do w/out it in a DELETE operation
... not sure how we can do w/out it in a DELETE operation ←
14:27:57 <chimezie> AndyS: CONSTRUCT can be used prior to DELETE initially
Andy Seaborne: CONSTRUCT can be used prior to DELETE initially ←
14:28:08 <chimezie> PATCH?
PATCH? ←
14:28:09 <SteveH> what would DELETE FROM <a> { ?x a foaf:Person } mean?
Steve Harris: what would DELETE FROM <a> { ?x a foaf:Person } mean? ←
14:28:11 <LeeF> ack LukeWM
Lee Feigenbaum: ack LukeWM ←
14:28:11 <Zakim> LukeWM, you wanted to ask about doing less in language & more in protocol
Zakim IRC Bot: LukeWM, you wanted to ask about doing less in language & more in protocol ←
14:28:27 <chimezie> LukeWM: How much time will be saved by doing less in UL and more in the protocol
Luke Wilson-Mawer: How much time will be saved by doing less in UL and more in the protocol ←
14:28:28 <AndyS> How commonly supported is PATCH?
Andy Seaborne: How commonly supported is PATCH? ←
14:28:40 <chimezie> Not very, I don't think (unfortunately)
Not very, I don't think (unfortunately) ←
14:28:47 <AxelPolleres> q-
Axel Polleres: q- ←
14:28:52 <SteveH> Suported by HTTP libraries, or servers?
Steve Harris: Suported by HTTP libraries, or servers? ←
14:28:52 <KjetilK> q+
Kjetil Kjernsmo: q+ ←
14:29:00 <chimezie> LeeF: Gut reaction is that it is same amount of work
Lee Feigenbaum: Gut reaction is that it is same amount of work ←
14:29:35 <chimezie> I'm not so sure it is the same amount of work, since in one case (in the protocol) you have precedent for the semantics of operations
I'm not so sure it is the same amount of work, since in one case (in the protocol) you have precedent for the semantics of operations ←
14:29:48 <AndyS> Quick google suggests it's new and not supported much. Draft expired July 2008.
Andy Seaborne: Quick google suggests it's new and not supported much. Draft expired July 2008. ←
14:30:43 <SteveH> major echo
Steve Harris: major echo ←
14:31:39 <chimezie> LeeF: does an UL w/out a WHERE language save us much?
Lee Feigenbaum: does an UL w/out a WHERE language save us much? ←
14:31:47 <chimezie> AndyS: Not much , but it does save *some* effort
Andy Seaborne: Not much , but it does save *some* effort ←
14:31:48 <ericP> i'd say it saves very little work
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'd say it saves very little work ←
14:32:06 <chimezie> ... but marginal.
... but marginal. ←
14:32:31 <chimezie> ... biggest work area is a formalization of a model of multiple graphs (where does that fit in REST?)
... biggest work area is a formalization of a model of multiple graphs (where does that fit in REST?) ←
14:33:05 <chimezie> AndyS: Perhaps best to at least try to start early
Andy Seaborne: Perhaps best to at least try to start early ←
14:33:12 <ericP> i propose that we do SPARQUL first, and call UL protocol at risk
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i propose that we do SPARQUL first, and call UL protocol at risk ←
14:33:30 <chimezie> I'm not so sure I understand the relationship between datasets and REST perhaps some elaboration?
I'm not so sure I understand the relationship between datasets and REST perhaps some elaboration? ←
14:34:02 <chimezie> ... There are definately usecases that are not covered by protocol. Concerned about putting all effort in protocol
... There are definately usecases that are not covered by protocol. Concerned about putting all effort in protocol ←
14:34:41 <chimezie> AndyS: A lot of REST relies on particular ways of using URIs for addressing sub-resources
Andy Seaborne: A lot of REST relies on particular ways of using URIs for addressing sub-resources ←
14:35:07 <chimezie> ... how can a service expose itself such that its components can be acted upon. Don't have a way of naming subgraphs
... how can a service expose itself such that its components can be acted upon. Don't have a way of naming subgraphs ←
14:35:09 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:35:16 <KjetilK> ack me
Kjetil Kjernsmo: ack me ←
14:35:17 <SteveH> PUT http://endpoint/rest/?graph=http://foo.com
Steve Harris: PUT http://endpoint/rest/?graph=http://foo.com ←
14:35:32 <AxelPolleres> q+
Axel Polleres: q+ ←
14:35:57 <chimezie> Generally? plenty of precedent.
Generally? plenty of precedent. ←
14:36:23 <pgearon> I agree with ericP that it might make sense to put the protocol "at risk", but there still seems to be a number of people interested in the protocol. Maybe those who are interested should get together for a note?
Paula Gearon: I agree with ericP that it might make sense to put the protocol "at risk", but there still seems to be a number of people interested in the protocol. Maybe those who are interested should get together for a note? ←
14:37:03 <chimezie> AndyS: Can PUT/DELETE graphs but still have problem with parts of graphs
Andy Seaborne: Can PUT/DELETE graphs but still have problem with parts of graphs ←
14:37:17 <chimezie> Certainly addresdsing subgraphs is problematic for a 'pure' protocol approach
Certainly addresdsing subgraphs is problematic for a 'pure' protocol approach ←
14:37:45 <chimezie> but this is an example of an area where the UL takes care of what the protocol can't do intuitively, but these considerations should be considered
but this is an example of an area where the UL takes care of what the protocol can't do intuitively, but these considerations should be considered ←
14:38:42 <chimezie> SteveH: We may get more comments if we don't desribe a RESTful approach
Steve Harris: We may get more comments if we don't desribe a RESTful approach ←
14:38:59 <chimezie> AndyS: Perhaps we simply describe a mapping from the UL to the protocol
Andy Seaborne: Perhaps we simply describe a mapping from the UL to the protocol ←
14:39:05 <chimezie> ... an informative mapping
... an informative mapping ←
14:39:42 <ericP> chimezie: if you can't address part of the resource you're trying to update, ...
Chimezie Ogbuji: if you can't address part of the resource you're trying to update, ... [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
14:39:54 <ericP> ... i makes more sense in the language
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... i makes more sense in the language ←
14:40:34 <chimezie> AndyS: perhaps create the UL first and come abgck to this issue? Or create 2 task forces?
Andy Seaborne: perhaps create the UL first and come abgck to this issue? Or create 2 task forces? ←
14:40:41 <SteveH> how about define what datasets are, then have two taskforces?
Steve Harris: how about define what datasets are, then have two taskforces? ←
14:41:25 <chimezie> SteveH: Share issues with timescales and divergence. We avoided definition of *what* a dataset is. If we define this perhaps this is the starting point for two efforts?
Steve Harris: Share issues with timescales and divergence. We avoided definition of *what* a dataset is. If we define this perhaps this is the starting point for two efforts? ←
14:42:21 <AndyS> SPARQL/Update very carefully talks about a graph store, not dataset to allow them to be subtly different.
Andy Seaborne: SPARQL/Update very carefully talks about a graph store, not dataset to allow them to be subtly different. ←
14:42:34 <SteveH> ok, sorry AndyS :)
Steve Harris: ok, sorry AndyS :) ←
14:42:55 <chimezie> AxelPolleres: Should we identify restrictions up front ?
Axel Polleres: Should we identify restrictions up front ? ←
14:43:59 <chimezie> LeeF: consensus to do SPARUL w/out limitations upfront and then take a protocol approach as well. Not clear that these are mutually exclusive paradigms or how we coordinate these two approaches
Lee Feigenbaum: consensus to do SPARUL w/out limitations upfront and then take a protocol approach as well. Not clear that these are mutually exclusive paradigms or how we coordinate these two approaches ←
14:44:35 <AxelPolleres> We seem to guess where we can cut/whereas any of the proposed phasing doesn't seem to work for all use cases mentioned so far.
Axel Polleres: We seem to guess where we can cut/whereas any of the proposed phasing doesn't seem to work for all use cases mentioned so far. ←
14:45:09 <chimezie> ... but are there things that can be done RESTfully but not easily in UL
... but are there things that can be done RESTfully but not easily in UL ←
14:45:11 <AndyS> q+ to express REST hopes
Andy Seaborne: q+ to express REST hopes ←
14:45:21 <AxelPolleres> q-
Axel Polleres: q- ←
14:45:34 <LukeWM> q+
Luke Wilson-Mawer: q+ ←
14:45:48 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:45:48 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to express REST hopes
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to express REST hopes ←
14:45:57 <chimezie> AndyS: Nice thing about REST is deployability on standard servers
Andy Seaborne: Nice thing about REST is deployability on standard servers ←
14:46:16 <chimezie> q+
q+ ←
14:46:25 <KjetilK> +1 to AndyS point
Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 to AndyS point ←
14:46:40 <chimezie> LukeWM: No clear usecase of where you can do one via REST but not via the protocol
Luke Wilson-Mawer: No clear usecase of where you can do one via REST but not via the update language -- i think? ←
14:47:02 <LeeF> s/via the protocol/via the update language -- i think?
14:47:37 <LeeF> ack chimezie
Lee Feigenbaum: ack chimezie ←
14:47:40 <LeeF> ack LukeWM
Lee Feigenbaum: ack LukeWM ←
14:47:41 <SteveH> the curl as a sparql client usecase
Steve Harris: the curl as a sparql client usecase ←
14:48:17 <LeeF> chimezie: as we develop SPARQL/Update language, take a look at HTTP and see if there's precedent and specifications that give us a way to do it RESTfully - make sure there's harmony between SPARQL/Update & HTTP
Chimezie Ogbuji: as we develop SPARQL/Update language, take a look at HTTP and see if there's precedent and specifications that give us a way to do it RESTfully - make sure there's harmony between SPARQL/Update & HTTP [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:48:38 <AxelPolleres> chime: start with the language and then have a look of which patr of it can fit in the RESTful approach
Chimezie Ogbuji: start with the language and then have a look of which patr of it can fit in the RESTful approach [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:48:53 <AxelPolleres> (+1 to chime on that)
Axel Polleres: (+1 to chime on that) ←
14:49:22 <chimezie> LeeF: General consensus - Want to start with SPARUL submission then exploit operations that can be done RESTfully over HTTP
Lee Feigenbaum: General consensus - Want to start with SPARUL submission then exploit operations that can be done RESTfully over HTTP ←
14:49:37 <KjetilK> +1
Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 ←
14:49:47 <AxelPolleres> LeeF: general agreement with that?
Lee Feigenbaum: general agreement with that? [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
14:49:52 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
14:49:54 <Prateek> +1
Prateek Jain: +1 ←
14:49:59 <SimonS> +1
Simon Schenk: +1 ←
14:50:06 <chimezie> LeeF: quick straw poll on this point of consensus
Lee Feigenbaum: quick straw poll on this point of consensus ←
14:50:17 <AndyS> +1 with caution
Andy Seaborne: +1 with caution ←
14:50:26 <john-l> +1
John Clark: +1 ←
14:50:36 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:50:41 <LeeF> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/17
Lee Feigenbaum: -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/17 ←
14:51:09 <AlexPassant> +1
Alexandre Passant: +1 ←
14:51:10 <LukeWM> 0
14:51:10 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
14:51:13 <ivanh> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:51:38 <chimezie> LeeF: proposal is to resolve this issue (17)
Lee Feigenbaum: proposal is to resolve this issue (17) ←
14:52:11 <LeeF> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-17 in favor of doing a full-featured, multi-graph update language and to define corresponding RESTful operations where possible
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-17 in favor of doing a full-featured, multi-graph update language and to define corresponding RESTful operations where possible ←
14:52:44 <chimezie> AndyS: .. and to define .. where possible
Andy Seaborne: .. and to define .. where possible ←
14:52:56 <chimezie> ... I read as doing UL and seeing where REST fits in
... I read as doing UL and seeing where REST fits in ←
14:52:58 <SteveH> I don't really like that wording
Steve Harris: I don't really like that wording ←
14:53:57 <chimezie> SteveH: suggested wording: Support the natural REST operations
Steve Harris: suggested wording: Support the natural REST operations ←
14:54:20 <chimezie> ... current wording risks ending up with a disconnect from REST
... current wording risks ending up with a disconnect from REST ←
14:55:06 <chimezie> how about instead of 'where possible' , 'where there is clear guidance from web architecture'
how about instead of 'where possible' , 'where there is clear guidance from web architecture' ←
14:55:21 <SteveH> still don't see why way want to align them
Steve Harris: still don't see why way want to align them ←
14:55:36 <LeeF> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-17 in favor of doing a full-featured, multi-graph update language and to define corresponding RESTful operations where there is clear guidance from web architecture
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-17 in favor of doing a full-featured, multi-graph update language and to define corresponding RESTful operations where there is clear guidance from web architecture ←
14:56:19 <AndyS> One key issue coudl be investigated -- the use of query string/PUT and how widespread is the consensus of use. Given the state of the world, we can be more comfortable with the connection to language
Andy Seaborne: One key issue coudl be investigated -- the use of query string/PUT and how widespread is the consensus of use. Given the state of the world, we can be more comfortable with the connection to language ←
14:56:23 <chimezie> SteveH: agree to do trivial REST operations at least
Steve Harris: agree to do trivial REST operations at least ←
14:57:30 <SteveH> or maybe the new issue should be "how do we support RESTful inferfaces"
Steve Harris: or maybe the new issue should be "how do we support RESTful inferfaces" ←
14:57:39 <LeeF> PROPOSAL: SPARQL WG will pursue a full-featured, multi-graph update language
PROPOSED: SPARQL WG will pursue a full-featured, multi-graph update language ←
14:58:06 <LeeF> PROPOSAL: SPARQL WG will define RESTful operations for updating RDF stores
PROPOSED: SPARQL WG will define RESTful operations for updating RDF stores ←
14:58:11 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:58:12 <KjetilK> +1
Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 ←
14:58:37 <chimezie> SteveH: We don't have to tie them
Steve Harris: We don't have to tie them ←
14:58:41 <SteveH> they /might/ turn out to be harmonised, but also they might not
Steve Harris: they /might/ turn out to be harmonised, but also they might not ←
14:58:48 <chimezie> AndyS: agree (about not tying them)
Andy Seaborne: agree (about not tying them) ←
14:59:12 <chimezie> LeeF: do these 2 proposals at least
Lee Feigenbaum: do these 2 proposals at least ←
14:59:40 <LeeF> PROPOSAL: SPARQL WG will pursue a full-featured, multi-graph update language
PROPOSED: SPARQL WG will pursue a full-featured, multi-graph update language ←
14:59:48 <KjetilK> +1
Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 ←
14:59:52 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
(Scribe set to Eric Prud'hommeaux)
15:00:03 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
15:00:07 <LeeF> RESOLVED: SPARQL WG will pursue a full-featured, multi-graph update language
RESOLVED: SPARQL WG will pursue a full-featured, multi-graph update language ←
15:00:11 <LeeF> no objections or abstentions
Lee Feigenbaum: no objections or abstentions ←
15:00:17 <LeeF> PROPOSAL: SPARQL WG will define RESTful operations for updating RDF stores
Lee Feigenbaum: PROPOSAL: SPARQL WG will define RESTful operations for updating RDF stores ←
15:00:25 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
15:00:26 <KjetilK> +1
Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 ←
15:00:36 <ericP> abstain
abstain ←
15:00:49 <LeeF> PROPOSAL: SPARQL WG will pursue RESTful operations for updating RDF stores
PROPOSED: SPARQL WG will pursue RESTful operations for updating RDF stores ←
15:00:54 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
15:00:57 <ericP> +1
+1 ←
15:00:58 <KjetilK> +1
Kjetil Kjernsmo: +1 ←
15:00:59 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
15:01:01 <SimonS> +1
Simon Schenk: +1 ←
15:01:02 <AlexPassant> +1
Alexandre Passant: +1 ←
15:01:05 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
15:01:06 <Prateek> +1
Prateek Jain: +1 ←
15:01:21 <SteveH> don't you need a 2nd
Steve Harris: don't you need a 2nd ←
15:01:59 <LeeF> RESOLVED: SPARQL WG will pursue RESTful operations for updating RDF stores
RESOLVED: SPARQL WG will pursue RESTful operations for updating RDF stores ←
15:02:10 <ivanh> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:02:14 <AxelPolleres> +1 (agreeing that pursue is better than define)
Axel Polleres: +1 (agreeing that pursue is better than define) ←
15:02:33 <LeeF> ISSUE: What RESTful update operations should be defined?
ISSUE: What RESTful update operations should be defined? ←
15:02:33 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-30 - What RESTful update operations should be defined? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/30/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-30 - What RESTful update operations should be defined? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/30/edit . ←
15:03:08 <ericP> LeeF: anyone believe these close issue 17?
Lee Feigenbaum: anyone believe these close ISSUE-17? ←
15:03:38 <AndyS> I believe they do
Andy Seaborne: I believe they do ←
15:04:08 <ericP> ivanh: [adminstrative] make it clear what protocol stuff is in the requirements document, and ergo, SPARQL-b charter
Ivan Herman: [adminstrative] make it clear what protocol stuff is in the requirements document, and ergo, SPARQL-b charter ←
<LeeF> topic: rdf:PlainLiteral (nee rdf:text)
15:04:19 <AndyS> rdf:text -> rdf:PlainLiteral
Andy Seaborne: rdf:text -> rdf:PlainLiteral ←
15:05:01 <ericP> AndyS: i am tolerant of the current text in the document
Andy Seaborne: i am tolerant of the current text in the document ←
15:05:22 <ericP> ... explicitly refs SPARQL BGP mapping
... explicitly refs SPARQL BGP mapping ←
15:05:40 <ericP> ... i didn't believe arguments that it was already said in the spec
... i didn't believe arguments that it was already said in the spec ←
15:06:14 <ericP> ... covers requirement if there are no changes to SPARQL
... covers requirement if there are no changes to SPARQL ←
15:06:32 <ericP> q+ to say that rdf-interpretation covers "extended" BGP matching
q+ to say that rdf-interpretation covers "extended" BGP matching ←
15:06:59 <LeeF> ack ivanh
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivanh ←
15:07:07 <LeeF> ack ericP
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericP ←
15:07:07 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that rdf-interpretation covers "extended" BGP matching
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say that rdf-interpretation covers "extended" BGP matching ←
15:07:15 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral#Syntax_for_rdf:PlainLiteral_Literals
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral#Syntax_for_rdf:PlainLiteral_Literals ←
15:07:21 <AxelPolleres> dropped again... thanks to Andy for the summary.
Axel Polleres: dropped again... thanks to Andy for the summary. ←
15:07:48 <AxelPolleres> apologies, but have to join the RIF conf now.
Axel Polleres: apologies, but have to join the RIF conf now. ←
15:11:31 <LeeF> PROPOSAL: SPARQL WG is satisfied with how http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral as of 11:11EDT on 2009-06-02 addresses our LC comments on rdf:text
PROPOSED: SPARQL WG is satisfied with how http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral as of 11:11EDT on 2009-06-02 addresses our LC comments on rdf:text ←
15:11:37 <ericP> second
second ←
15:11:52 <AndyS> seconded
Andy Seaborne: seconded ←
15:12:15 <ivanh> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:12:19 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
15:12:21 <AndyS> RESOLVED
Andy Seaborne: RESOLVED ←
15:11:31 <LeeF> RESOLVED: SPARQL WG is satisfied with how http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral as of 11:11EDT on 2009-06-02 addresses our LC comments on rdf:text
RESOLVED: SPARQL WG is satisfied with how http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral as of 11:11EDT on 2009-06-02 addresses our LC comments on rdf:text ←
15:12:29 <LeeF> ericP, do you want to communicate this?
Lee Feigenbaum: ericP, do you want to communicate this? ←
15:12:40 <ericP> sure
sure ←
15:12:48 <SteveH> bye
Steve Harris: bye ←
15:13:16 <ericP> ACTION: eric to tell OWL/RIF that SPARQL is content with http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral
ACTION: eric to tell OWL/RIF that SPARQL is content with http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral ←
15:13:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Tell OWL/RIF that SPARQL is content with http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2009-06-09].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-35 - Tell OWL/RIF that SPARQL is content with http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PlainLiteral [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2009-06-09]. ←
15:13:30 <AndyS> ADJOURNED
Andy Seaborne: ADJOURNED ←
Formatted by CommonScribe