None.
There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
It may be helpful to
<LukeWM>Present: AxelPolleres, ivanherman, LeeF, kasei, bglimm, SteveH, LukeWM, SimonS, SimonKJ, EricP, Chimezie_Ogbuji, AlexPassant, OlivierCorby, Orri, Prateek
Scribe problem: the name 'SimonKJ' does not match any of the 58 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Ahmed Ezzat Alexandre Passant Andrea Westerinen Andrei Lopatenko Andy Seaborne Axel Polleres Bijan Parsia Birte Glimm Bryan Thompson Chimezie Ogbuji Cui Tao Daniel Schutzer Dave Beckett David Newman Davide Palmisano Dhanapalan Kulandai Vadivel Dirk Colaert Dirk-Willem van Gulik Edward Thomas Elias Torres Enrico Franconi Eric Prud'hommeaux Frank Careccia Fred Zemke Gregory Williams Hiroyuki Sato Ivan Mikhailov Ivan Herman Jacek Kopecký Janne Saarela Jari Vänttinen Jean-François Baget Jeen Broekstra Jeff Pollock John Clark Jos De Roo Kendall Clark Kevin Wilkinson Kjetil Kjernsmo Lee Feigenbaum Luke Wilson-Mawer Michael Smith Michele Minno Nophadol Jekjantuk Olivier Corby Orri Erling Paula Gearon Prateek Jain Rachel Yager Roland Schwaenzl Sergio Tessaris Simon Johnston Simon Schenk Souripriya Das Steve Harris Sven Groppe Timo Westkämper Yoshio Fukushige
<LukeWM>Regrets: AndyS, pgearon
13:54:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-sparql-irc ←
13:54:57 <AxelPolleres> Regrets: Paul, Andy, Bijan
13:55:15 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, you don't need to do rrsagent & zakim by hand in the future - you can just use "trackbot, start meeting"
Lee Feigenbaum: AxelPolleres, you don't need to do rrsagent & zakim by hand in the future - you can just use "trackbot, start meeting" ←
13:56:56 <OlivierCorby> Hello, I am Olivier Corby from INRIA Sophia Antipolis, new member of the WG
Olivier Corby: Hello, I am Olivier Corby from INRIA Sophia Antipolis, new member of the WG ←
13:57:02 <AxelPolleres> ah right, but I don't need to say it again now, do I?
Axel Polleres: ah right, but I don't need to say it again now, do I? ←
13:57:21 <AxelPolleres> Welcome Olivier!
Axel Polleres: Welcome Olivier! ←
13:57:50 <LeeF> hi OlivierCorby, good to have you
Lee Feigenbaum: hi OlivierCorby, good to have you ←
13:58:05 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, right, no need to repeat it now, though trackbot does do other things like date and stuff
Lee Feigenbaum: AxelPolleres, right, no need to repeat it now, though trackbot does do other things like date and stuff ←
14:00:15 <LeeF> Chair: AxelPolleres
14:00:26 <LeeF> Meeting: 22 Sep 2009
14:02:22 <kasei> it's the same number as Olivier, but without the country code.
Gregory Williams: it's the same number as Olivier, but without the country code. ←
14:02:52 <LukeWM> the agenda says duration is 90 minutes, is this true?
Luke Wilson-Mawer: the agenda says duration is 90 minutes, is this true? ←
14:02:56 <BirteGlimm> Welcome Olivier
Birte Glimm: Welcome Olivier ←
14:03:00 <LeeF> wouldn't be the first time
Lee Feigenbaum: wouldn't be the first time ←
14:03:19 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: welcome Olivier Corby to the group.
Axel Polleres: welcome Olivier Corby to the group. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
14:03:22 <LeeF> Scribenick: LukeWM
(Scribe set to Luke Wilson-Mawer)
14:03:29 <LukeWM> thanks LeeF
thanks LeeF ←
14:03:39 <LeeF> err
Lee Feigenbaum: err ←
14:03:53 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets introduce Olivier Corby
Axel Polleres: lets introduce Olivier Corby ←
14:04:01 <ericP> s/Oliier/Olivier/
Eric Prud'hommeaux: s/Oliier/Olivier/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
14:04:06 <LukeWM> OlivierCorby: gives introduction
Olivier Corby: gives introduction ←
14:05:06 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: remember to rejoin the group
Axel Polleres: remember to rejoin the group ←
14:05:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: or ask your AC rep to do it. Will check this later.
Axel Polleres: or ask your AC rep to do it. Will check this later. ←
14:05:47 <LukeWM> ericP: email problems due to recharting & not complicated enough tooling.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: email problems due to recharting & not complicated enough tooling. ←
14:05:54 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15 ←
14:05:58 <LeeF> q+ to ask once more for people to fill out http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to ask once more for people to fill out http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2 ←
14:06:06 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:06:48 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED to accept http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15
Axel Polleres: PROPOSED to accept http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15 ←
14:07:01 <LukeWM> LeeF: remember to fill in F2F2 attendance.
Lee Feigenbaum: remember to fill in F2F2 attendance. ←
14:07:04 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2 F2F wiki
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2 F2F wiki ←
14:07:11 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED to accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15
Axel Polleres: RESOLVED to accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15 ←
14:07:52 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: next scribe is bijan if he doesn't still have telephone difficulties.
Axel Polleres: next scribe is bijan if he doesn't still have telephone difficulties. ←
14:08:10 <BirteGlimm> yes
Birte Glimm: yes ←
14:08:16 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: next scribe will be Chimezie if he is there.
Axel Polleres: next scribe will be Chimezie if he is there. ←
14:08:37 <AxelPolleres> topic: liaisons
14:08:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: Liasions...
Axel Polleres: Liasions... ←
14:08:54 <ericP> q+ to mention RIF
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to mention RIF ←
14:08:55 <LeeF> congrats, OWL and OWLers!
Lee Feigenbaum: congrats, OWL and OWLers! ←
14:08:58 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: owl went to proposed recommendation today
Birte Glimm: owl went to proposed recommendation today ←
14:09:34 <LukeWM> ericP: RIF is soliciting review from Xquery because of added functions and operators
Eric Prud'hommeaux: RIF is soliciting review from Xquery because of added functions and operators ←
14:10:19 <LukeWM> ericP: we might end up needing to work with RIF
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we might end up needing to work with RIF ←
14:10:35 <LukeWM> ericP: because of collisions between our functions and operators. Perhaps a common document.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: because of collisions between our functions and operators. Perhaps a common document. ←
14:10:39 <AxelPolleres> chime, can you scribe next time?
Axel Polleres: chime, can you scribe next time? ←
14:10:50 <chimezie> sure
Chimezie Ogbuji: sure ←
14:11:00 <ericP> in particular, RIF F&O deal with the same atoms that we have, XSD types + URIs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: in particular, RIF F&O deal with the same atoms that we have, XSD types + URIs ←
14:11:01 <LukeWM> topic: Actions...
14:11:05 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open ←
14:11:10 <ericP> (well, IRIs in our specs)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (well, IRIs in our specs) ←
14:11:37 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: action for ericP to draft project expressions.
Axel Polleres: action for ericP to draft project expressions. ←
14:11:51 <LukeWM> ericP: that's done, but perhaps someone wants something more, otherwise, lets remove it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: that's done, but perhaps someone wants something more, otherwise, lets remove it. ←
14:12:07 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: can we just close it?
Axel Polleres: can we just close it? ←
14:12:18 <LukeWM> ericP: yes
Eric Prud'hommeaux: yes ←
14:12:35 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: investigating issue 33 & creating trac links for update issues
Axel Polleres: investigating ISSUE-33 & creating trac links for update issues ←
14:12:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: for Lee, is that done?
Axel Polleres: for Lee, is that done? ←
14:12:47 <AxelPolleres> Lee?
Axel Polleres: Lee? ←
14:13:56 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: chime, update on Aggregates issue.
Axel Polleres: chime, update on Aggregates issue. ←
14:14:18 <LukeWM> chimezie: there was something about groups, but I don't think this is part of the action.
Chimezie Ogbuji: there was something about groups, but I don't think this is part of the action. ←
14:14:38 <LukeWM> chimezie: leave the action open and I'll investigate.
Chimezie Ogbuji: leave the action open and I'll investigate. ←
14:14:52 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: leaves an action for himself open.
Axel Polleres: leaves an action for himself open. ←
14:14:56 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:15:08 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: synchronising errata with Andy?
Axel Polleres: synchronising errata with Andy? ←
14:15:16 <LukeWM> LeeF: can't close that yet.
Lee Feigenbaum: can't close that yet. ←
14:15:29 <LukeWM> LeeF: I'll go through and close the ones that need to be.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'll go through and close the ones that need to be. ←
14:16:00 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: look into xml spec for SPARQL query with Andy - action on ericP.
Axel Polleres: look into xml spec for SPARQL query with Andy - action on ericP. ←
14:16:21 <LukeWM> ericP: ported SPARQL 1.1 to xml spec & update document to xml spec.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ported SPARQL 1.1 to xml spec & update document to xml spec. ←
14:16:33 <LukeWM> ericP: I don't know if Andy is using it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't know if Andy is using it. ←
14:16:42 <LeeF> q+ to give mailing list heads up
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to give mailing list heads up ←
14:16:54 <SimonS> q+ re xmlspec
Simon Schenk: q+ re xmlspec ←
14:16:55 <LukeWM> ericP: there's no point in leaving this action open.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there's no point in leaving this action open. ←
14:17:24 <LukeWM> SimonS: a comment on XML spec.
Simon Schenk: a comment on XML spec. ←
14:17:36 <LukeWM> SimonS: can we have our own copy.
Simon Schenk: can we have our own copy. ←
14:18:15 <LukeWM> ericP: we're free to copy it, but we ought to use an existing one to ensure minimum differences.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we're free to copy it, but we ought to use an existing one to ensure minimum differences. ←
14:18:41 <LukeWM> SimonS: we have marked it up with a special class.
Simon Schenk: we have marked it up with a special class. ←
14:18:54 <LukeWM> ericP: we can just tweak the XSLT to make it all visible.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we can just tweak the XSLT to make it all visible. ←
14:19:01 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:19:08 <LeeF> ack ericP
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericP ←
14:19:11 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:19:25 <SimonS> q-
Simon Schenk: q- ←
14:19:55 <LukeWM> LeeF: there have been some hiccups with our mailing lists, and web archives haven't caught up.
Lee Feigenbaum: there have been some hiccups with our mailing lists, and web archives haven't caught up. ←
14:20:21 <LukeWM> LeeF: we're working on it, and will keep you up to date.
Lee Feigenbaum: we're working on it, and will keep you up to date. ←
14:20:47 <LukeWM> LeeF: w3c is being marked as spam by spamcop
Lee Feigenbaum: w3c is being marked as spam by spamcop ←
14:20:52 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:21:02 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: will it be fixed?
Axel Polleres: will it be fixed? ←
14:21:15 <LukeWM> LeeF: it's fixed for now but might recur.
Lee Feigenbaum: it's fixed for now but might recur. ←
14:21:58 <AxelPolleres> topic: FPWD progress - schedule
14:22:06 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets talk about where we are with the FPWD
Axel Polleres: lets talk about where we are with the FPWD ←
14:22:29 <BirteGlimm> 1st of September?
Birte Glimm: 1st of September? ←
14:22:44 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: we probably won't keep to end of september, but we should be as close as possible. I suggest the following schedule...
Axel Polleres: we probably won't keep to end of september, but we should be as close as possible. I suggest the following schedule... ←
14:22:50 <SteveH> BirteGlimm, end of sept.
Steve Harris: BirteGlimm, end of sept. ←
14:22:54 <BirteGlimm> ok
Birte Glimm: ok ←
14:22:56 <LeeF> Note that mailing list archives at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/ are now up to date
Lee Feigenbaum: Note that mailing list archives at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/ are now up to date ←
14:22:58 <LeeF> so follow along there!
Lee Feigenbaum: so follow along there! ←
14:23:10 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: first internal draft next week
Axel Polleres: first internal draft next week ←
14:23:16 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: choose reviewers today
Axel Polleres: choose reviewers today ←
14:23:23 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:23:35 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: decide to publish on October 13th
Axel Polleres: decide to publish on October 13th ←
14:24:02 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets pick the reviewers when we go through the documents.
Axel Polleres: lets pick the reviewers when we go through the documents. ←
14:24:24 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: how are we with respect to schedule, any issues?
Axel Polleres: how are we with respect to schedule, any issues? ←
14:24:29 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:24:51 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/ ←
14:25:00 <LukeWM> LeeF: can editors paste the links of the documents before discussing them.
Lee Feigenbaum: can editors paste the links of the documents before discussing them. ←
14:24:35 <LukeWM> topic: status of Sparql Query document?
14:25:55 <LukeWM> SteveH: Aggregate functions, subqueries, negation, project expressions
Steve Harris: Aggregate functions, subqueries, negation, project expressions ←
14:26:13 <LukeWM> SteveH: negation, project expressions 80 -90% complete.
Steve Harris: negation, project expressions 80 -90% complete. ←
14:26:41 <LukeWM> SteveH: requires more work on Aggregate functions and subqueries, but probably OK for review.
Steve Harris: requires more work on Aggregate functions and subqueries, but probably OK for review. ←
14:27:09 <LukeWM> SteveH: Aggregate functions and project expressions aren't complete enough yet.
Steve Harris: Aggregate functions and project expressions aren't complete enough yet. ←
14:27:33 <BirteGlimm> I would like to review it
Birte Glimm: I would like to review it ←
14:27:39 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: there will be something to review next week?
Axel Polleres: there will be something to review next week? ←
14:27:45 <LeeF> at least 2 :)
Lee Feigenbaum: at least 2 :) ←
14:27:53 <LukeWM> SteveH: yes
Steve Harris: yes ←
14:27:57 <LeeF> I'd like to review all of them, actually
Lee Feigenbaum: I'd like to review all of them, actually ←
14:28:05 <LeeF> Yes.
Lee Feigenbaum: Yes. ←
14:28:15 <LeeF> but would love 2 in addition to me ;)
Lee Feigenbaum: but would love 2 in addition to me ;) ←
14:28:25 <AxelPolleres> Reviewers for query: birte, Lee
Axel Polleres: Reviewers for query: birte, Lee ←
14:28:28 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:28:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: BirteGlimm has volunteered, and LeeF for all of them.
Axel Polleres: BirteGlimm has volunteered, and LeeF for all of them. ←
14:29:10 <SteveH> +1 to ivanherman
Steve Harris: +1 to ivanherman ←
14:29:11 <LukeWM> ivanherman: we should make it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document.
Ivan Herman: we should make it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. ←
14:29:13 <LeeF> ivanherman++ sounds like it makes sense in the status of the document
Lee Feigenbaum: ivanherman++ sounds like it makes sense in the status of the document ←
14:29:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: nobody disagrees
Axel Polleres: nobody disagrees ←
14:29:48 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Steve to make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document.
ACTION: Steve to make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. ←
14:29:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-92 - Make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29]. ←
14:30:27 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: anything urgent regarding this document? Aggregates is on agenda for next time. Is anything else needed?
Axel Polleres: anything urgent regarding this document? Aggregates is on agenda for next time. Is anything else needed? ←
14:30:39 <LukeWM> SteveH: we need to decide on the scope of the group expressions.
Steve Harris: we need to decide on the scope of the group expressions. ←
14:31:01 <LukeWM> SteveH: the algebra only allows group by variables, rather than expressions.
Steve Harris: the algebra only allows group by variables, rather than expressions. ←
14:31:04 <LeeF> ISSUE: Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions?
ISSUE: Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions? ←
14:31:04 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-41 - Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/41/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-41 - Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/41/edit . ←
14:31:40 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: can you summarise it on the mailing list.
Axel Polleres: can you summarise it on the mailing list. ←
14:32:05 <SteveH> ivanherman, ok, I'll look at that
Steve Harris: ivanherman, ok, I'll look at that ←
14:32:07 <LukeWM> SteveH: I'll talk to Andy first and the issue is sufficient.
Steve Harris: I'll talk to Andy first and the issue is sufficient. ←
14:32:18 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:32:22 <BirteGlimm> Do we try and get a third reviewer?
Birte Glimm: Do we try and get a third reviewer? ←
14:32:22 <ivanherman> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
14:32:43 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Steve to talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41,
ACTION: Steve to talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41, ←
14:32:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41, [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-93 - talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41, [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29]. ←
14:33:00 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: another reviewer?
Axel Polleres: another reviewer? ←
14:33:07 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:33:38 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: I'll be a reviewer, but next time I'll pick a victim.
Axel Polleres: I'll be a reviewer, but next time I'll pick a victim. ←
14:33:47 <AxelPolleres> Reviewers for SPARQL/Query: Axel, Lee, Birte (in reverse order of volunteering)
Axel Polleres: Reviewers for SPARQL/Query: Axel, Lee, Birte (in reverse order of volunteering) ←
14:34:09 <LukeWM> LeeF: it's not so important now, just needs to be presentable. Near the end we will need more serious reviews.
Lee Feigenbaum: it's not so important now, just needs to be presentable. Near the end we will need more serious reviews. ←
14:34:26 <AxelPolleres> topic: status of SPARQL/Update-1.0
14:34:26 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/ ←
14:34:30 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:34:42 <SteveH> I see a lot of things that looks like XML errors
Steve Harris: I see a lot of things that looks like XML errors ←
14:34:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: SimonS, can you summarize the update document.
Axel Polleres: SimonS, can you summarize the update document. ←
14:35:01 <LukeWM> SimonS: nearly done, good enough for review.
Simon Schenk: nearly done, good enough for review. ←
14:35:15 <LukeWM> SimonS: ericP is on the XML issues, so they should be fixed soon.
Simon Schenk: ericP is on the XML issues, so they should be fixed soon. ←
14:36:00 <LukeWM> ericP: we'll end up with a better stylesheet & dtd if you bear with me.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we'll end up with a better stylesheet & dtd if you bear with me. ←
14:36:03 <SteveH> q+ to ask about grammar syntax
Steve Harris: q+ to ask about grammar syntax ←
14:36:30 <LukeWM> ericP: I want to work out the minimal diff between a live version of the stylesheet and ours first.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I want to work out the minimal diff between a live version of the stylesheet and ours first. ←
14:37:04 <LukeWM> SimonS: we proposed to have a separate grammar document with an overlapping part but didn't have much response.
Simon Schenk: we proposed to have a separate grammar document with an overlapping part but didn't have much response. ←
14:37:23 <LukeWM> SimonS: Andy's response wasn't pro or con, so would like other opinions.
Simon Schenk: Andy's response wasn't pro or con, so would like other opinions. ←
14:37:29 <BirteGlimm> What does it mean to have an overlapping part?
Birte Glimm: What does it mean to have an overlapping part? ←
14:37:43 <SteveH> BirteGlimm, the common parts of the grammar
Steve Harris: BirteGlimm, the common parts of the grammar ←
14:37:59 <LukeWM> SimonS: there are some issues but they don't affect going to FPWD.
Simon Schenk: there are some issues but they don't affect going to FPWD. ←
14:38:27 <BirteGlimm> Hm, so you can identify what parts apply only to update and which parts apply also to standard SPARQL?
Birte Glimm: Hm, so you can identify what parts apply only to update and which parts apply also to standard SPARQL? ←
14:38:32 <AxelPolleres> the person typing, pls mute!
Axel Polleres: the person typing, pls mute! ←
14:38:33 <LukeWM> SteveH: where did the html that does the grammar come from.
Steve Harris: where did the html that does the grammar come from. ←
14:39:01 <LukeWM> ericP: pasted grammar into Yakker??? and got that to produce the HTML.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: pasted grammar into Yakker??? and got that to produce the HTML. ←
14:39:08 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:39:22 <AxelPolleres> ack SteveH
Axel Polleres: ack SteveH ←
14:39:31 <LukeWM> SteveH: HTML in update document looks to be just vanilla HTML.
Steve Harris: HTML in update document looks to be just vanilla HTML. ←
14:41:10 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets get back to this when we talk about the shared document.
Axel Polleres: lets get back to this when we talk about the shared document. ←
14:41:36 <LukeWM> ivanherman: it would be good if we are consistent in the order of the sections, and the update document is different.
Ivan Herman: it would be good if we are consistent in the order of the sections, and the update document is different. ←
14:41:51 <LukeWM> ivanherman: e.g. it has the issues starting at the beginning. Perhaps we should reorder.
Ivan Herman: e.g. it has the issues starting at the beginning. Perhaps we should reorder. ←
14:41:56 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: Simon, can it be done?
Axel Polleres: Simon, can it be done? ←
14:42:07 <LukeWM> SimonS: yes, any preference?
Simon Schenk: yes, any preference? ←
14:42:27 <LukeWM> ivanherman: we should be as close to Steve's document in structure.
Ivan Herman: we should be as close to Steve's document in structure. ←
14:42:48 <LukeWM> SteveH: we had an item on the TODO list to reorder the original SPARQL document to make it easier to read.
Steve Harris: we had an item on the TODO list to reorder the original SPARQL document to make it easier to read. ←
14:43:09 <LukeWM> ivanherman: my point is that update & query documents should follow the same structure.
Ivan Herman: my point is that update & query documents should follow the same structure. ←
14:43:13 <LukeWM> SteveH: agreed.
Steve Harris: agreed. ←
14:43:31 <LukeWM> ivanherman: can we follow the query document.
Ivan Herman: can we follow the query document. ←
14:43:34 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: SimonS to agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure .
ACTION: SimonS to agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure . ←
14:43:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure . [on Simon Schenk - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-94 - Agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure . [on Simon Schenk - due 2009-09-29]. ←
14:45:23 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: there are overlaps between the grammars, so to avoid redundancy, we should have a separate grammar document with the intersection between the grammars.
Axel Polleres: there are overlaps between the grammars, so to avoid redundancy, we should have a separate grammar document with the intersection between the grammars. ←
14:45:27 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
14:45:44 <ericP> q- ivanherman
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q- ivanherman ←
14:46:05 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: or we can just link from the query document to the update document
Axel Polleres: or we can just link from the query document to the update document ←
14:46:24 <LukeWM> SteveH: describing update in terms of query results in a double-headed grammar.
Steve Harris: describing update in terms of query results in a double-headed grammar. ←
14:46:29 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:46:35 <SteveH> ack me
Steve Harris: ack me ←
14:46:49 <LukeWM> ericP, I didn't catch your point.
ericP, I did notn't catch your point. ←
14:47:04 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: if you link, it still results in 2 grammars.
Axel Polleres: if you link, it still results in 2 grammars. ←
14:47:14 <LukeWM> SteveH: in all cases you end up with 2 grammars.
Steve Harris: in all cases you end up with 2 grammars. ←
14:48:04 <LukeWM> ericP: conceptually, it's nice if they both reference their intersection. But from a tool perspective, it's easier to have one big piece.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: conceptually, it's nice if they both reference their intersection. But from a tool perspective, it's easier to have one big piece. ←
14:48:21 <LukeWM> SteveH: ericP's master grammar with annotations for each spec is a good idea.
Steve Harris: ericP's master grammar with annotations for each spec is a good idea. ←
14:49:05 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: Can we do the joint grammar document in time? What do the editor's say, is it doable?
Axel Polleres: Can we do the joint grammar document in time? What do the editor's say, is it doable? ←
14:49:32 <LukeWM> SteveH: we aren't merging grammars.
Steve Harris: we aren't merging grammars. ←
14:49:48 <AxelPolleres> non need to decide now.
Axel Polleres: non need to decide now. ←
14:49:52 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: do we need to decide yet?
Axel Polleres: do we need to decide yet? ←
14:50:06 <SteveH> I'll review
Steve Harris: I'll review ←
14:50:13 <LukeWM> SteveH: no, differences can be describe in terms of 1.0 grammar.
Steve Harris: no, differences can be describe in terms of 1.0 grammar. ←
14:50:28 <LukeWM> I can do it too
I can do it too ←
14:50:41 <LeeF> Not concerned with that
Lee Feigenbaum: Not concerned with that ←
14:50:53 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for SPARQL/Update: Steve, Luke, Lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for SPARQL/Update: Steve, Luke, Lee ←
14:51:19 <LukeWM> topic: status of RESTful update document
14:51:50 <LukeWM> chimezie: nothing to show, just trying to collect consensus, hopefully next week there'll be something worth reviewing.
Chimezie Ogbuji: nothing to show, just trying to collect consensus, hopefully next week there'll be something worth reviewing. ←
14:52:15 <AxelPolleres> update-protocol-1.0? RESTful-update-1.0?
Axel Polleres: update-protocol-1.0? RESTful-update-1.0? ←
14:52:18 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: what is the short name for the document?
Axel Polleres: what is the short name for the document? ←
14:52:18 <LeeF> chimezie, is there a URL for where the draft will go yet?
Lee Feigenbaum: chimezie, is there a URL for where the draft will go yet? ←
14:52:34 <SteveH> http-update?
Steve Harris: http-update? ←
14:52:35 <LukeWM> chimezie: lets not use REST in the name, something like RDF Update.
Chimezie Ogbuji: lets not use REST in the name, something like RDF Update. ←
14:52:39 <SteveH> +1 to not using REST
Steve Harris: +1 to not using REST ←
14:52:41 <AxelPolleres> RDF-update? http-update?
Axel Polleres: RDF-update? http-update? ←
14:53:00 <AlexPassant> +1 for not using REST but using HTTP in the title
Alexandre Passant: +1 for not using REST but using HTTP in the title ←
14:53:03 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: any preferences, RDF-update or http-update?
Axel Polleres: any preferences, RDF-update or http-update? ←
14:53:14 <BirteGlimm> +1 to http-update
Birte Glimm: +1 to http-update ←
14:53:21 <ivanherman> sparql-http-update?
Ivan Herman: sparql-http-update? ←
14:53:27 <LukeWM> LeeF: we just need to distinguish it from SPARQL/update sufficiently.
Lee Feigenbaum: we just need to distinguish it from SPARQL/update sufficiently. ←
14:53:31 <AxelPolleres> +1 to http-update
Axel Polleres: +1 to http-update ←
14:53:42 <chimezie> +1 http-rdf-update or http-update
Chimezie Ogbuji: +1 http-rdf-update or http-update ←
14:53:47 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets have a quick straw poll.
Axel Polleres: lets have a quick straw poll. ←
14:53:58 <LukeWM> +1 to rdf-http-update
+1 to rdf-http-update ←
14:54:04 <SteveH> +1 http-rdf-update or http-update
Steve Harris: +1 http-rdf-update or http-update ←
14:54:09 <SimonS> +1 http-rdf-update
Simon Schenk: +1 http-rdf-update ←
14:54:12 <ivanherman> 'http-update' might not say that this is related to rdf or sparql
Ivan Herman: 'http-update' might not say that this is related to rdf or sparql ←
14:54:16 <AlexPassant> +1 http-rdf-update
Alexandre Passant: +1 http-rdf-update ←
14:54:17 <kasei> +1 http-rdf-update
Gregory Williams: +1 http-rdf-update ←
14:54:19 <LeeF> yeah, http-update doesn't make any sense to me :)
Lee Feigenbaum: yeah, http-update doesn't make any sense to me :) ←
14:54:25 <ivanherman> rdf-http-update or http-rdf-update:-)
Ivan Herman: rdf-http-update or http-rdf-update:-) ←
14:54:32 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: volunteers for reviewing
Axel Polleres: volunteers for reviewing ←
14:54:41 <BirteGlimm> true, I am happy with http-rdf-update or http-sparql-update
Birte Glimm: true, I am happy with http-rdf-update or http-sparql-update ←
14:54:48 <LukeWM> SimonKJ: I can review it
Unknown SimonKJ: I can review it ←
14:54:53 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for http-update: simonKJ, simonS, Lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for http-update: simonKJ, simonS, Lee ←
14:54:55 <LukeWM> SimonS: me too
Simon Schenk: me too ←
14:55:13 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: I'll put Lee too.
Axel Polleres: I'll put Lee too. ←
14:55:37 <AxelPolleres> topic: status of protocol-1.1 document?
14:56:04 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: SimonKJ, can you report on the protocol document
Axel Polleres: SimonKJ, can you report on the protocol document ←
14:56:42 <LukeWM> SimonKJ: I need to send CVS keys to ericP, but haven't got going with it.
Unknown SimonKJ: I need to send CVS keys to ericP, but haven't got going with it. ←
14:56:44 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:57:02 <LukeWM> SimonKJ: I hope I can get something for next week if I can get CVS sorted today.
Unknown SimonKJ: I hope I can get something for next week if I can get CVS sorted today. ←
14:57:20 <LukeWM> LeeF: We can talk and perhaps do something jointly.
Lee Feigenbaum: We can talk and perhaps do something jointly. ←
14:57:30 <BirteGlimm> I might need CVS access as well since at the moment we edit in the WebOnt wiki
Birte Glimm: I might need CVS access as well since at the moment we edit in the WebOnt wiki ←
14:57:39 <LukeWM> ivanherman: there is a practical reason why that document should be published at the same time.
Ivan Herman: there is a practical reason why that document should be published at the same time. ←
14:58:03 <AxelPolleres> birte ,we'll get to that, agreed.
Axel Polleres: birte ,we'll get to that, agreed. ←
14:58:34 <LukeWM> ivanherman: if we do it now, it will be easier for companies like HP or Oracle
Ivan Herman: if we do it now, it will be easier for companies like HP or Oracle ←
14:58:52 <ivanherman> s/did/did not/
14:59:01 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: reviewers?
Axel Polleres: reviewers? ←
14:59:03 <AlexPassant> ill do it
Alexandre Passant: ill do it ←
14:59:27 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for protocol-1.1: Axel Alex
Axel Polleres: reviewers for protocol-1.1: Axel Alex ←
14:59:49 <LukeWM> topic: status of service description document
14:59:57 <AxelPolleres> service-description-1.0?
Axel Polleres: service-description-1.0? ←
15:00:28 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:00:29 <LeeF> sparql-service-description ?
Lee Feigenbaum: sparql-service-description ? ←
15:00:31 <LukeWM> kasei: discovery stuff is settled, but vocabulary still needs to be sorted
Gregory Williams: discovery stuff is settled, but vocabulary still needs to be sorted ←
15:00:39 <LukeWM> kasei, that was you speaking wasn't it?
kasei, that was you speaking wasn't it? ←
15:01:02 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: short name?
Axel Polleres: short name? ←
15:01:11 <kasei> LukeWM, yes
Gregory Williams: LukeWM, yes ←
15:01:11 <LukeWM> ivanherman: all short names should start the same.
Ivan Herman: all short names should start the same. ←
15:01:12 <AxelPolleres> All short names should start with sparql- or rdf-
Axel Polleres: All short names should start with sparql- or rdf- ←
15:01:16 <LukeWM> cool
cool ←
15:01:37 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: will it be possible to review next week.
Axel Polleres: will it be possible to review next week. ←
15:02:03 <LukeWM> kasei: I don't have anything yet, but will try for something next week. It isn't as deep in scope as some of the others.
Gregory Williams: I don't have anything yet, but will try for something next week. It isn't as deep in scope as some of the others. ←
15:02:15 <LukeWM> I can review it when it's done.
I can review it when it's done. ←
15:02:17 <SimonKJ> I'll do that one as well
Unknown SimonKJ: I'll do that one as well ←
15:02:19 <ericP> ivanherman, will you be able to cover the rest of this call? i have a conflict starting now.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ivanherman, will you be able to cover the rest of this call? i have a conflict starting now. ←
15:02:46 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for service-descriptions: SimonK, Axel, Lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for service-descriptions: SimonK, Axel, Lee ←
15:03:23 <AxelPolleres> topic: status of R&R document
15:03:23 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ ←
15:03:29 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: anything with respect to update for F & R ? Will there be a new version, will things be added for time allowed features.
Axel Polleres: anything with respect to update for F & R ? Will there be a new version, will things be added for time allowed features. ←
15:03:50 <LukeWM> LeeF: I'm keen to hear about the status of entailment. Lets talk about this later.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'm keen to hear about the status of entailment. Lets talk about this later. ←
15:05:08 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for F&R: chime, Lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for F&R: chime, Lee ←
15:05:25 <BirteGlimm> http://wiki.webont.org/page/SPARQL/OWL
Birte Glimm: http://wiki.webont.org/page/SPARQL/OWL ←
15:05:51 <LukeWM> AlexPassant, I didn't catch what you said about the F& R status, could you put it into IRC please.
AlexPassant, I didn't catch what you said about the F& R status, could you put it into IRC please. ←
15:06:11 <AlexPassant> AlexPassant: Will update FR with more content on allowed feature by next week
Alexandre Passant: Will update FR with more content on allowed feature by next week [ Scribe Assist by Alexandre Passant ] ←
15:06:24 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: OWL - there's still a lot of work around what is decidable and not, but should have a decent version next week.
Birte Glimm: OWL - there's still a lot of work around what is decidable and not, but should have a decent version next week. ←
15:06:33 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: just sparql-owl?
Axel Polleres: just sparql-owl? ←
15:07:11 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: the basic difference is just what queries are allowed, so the same restrictions apply as OWL2.
Birte Glimm: the basic difference is just what queries are allowed, so the same restrictions apply as OWL2. ←
15:07:36 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: it isn't worth doing SPARQL RDFS because you don't gain much.
Birte Glimm: it isn't worth doing SPARQL RDFS because you don't gain much. ←
15:07:47 <LeeF> let's try one or two out first :
Lee Feigenbaum: let's try one or two out first : ←
15:07:48 <LeeF> :)
Lee Feigenbaum: :) ←
15:07:50 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: is there any RIF in there?
Axel Polleres: is there any RIF in there? ←
15:08:00 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: no
Birte Glimm: no ←
15:08:08 <LeeF> q+ to ask how the extension mechanism seems
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to ask how the extension mechanism seems ←
15:08:11 <LeeF> ack ivanherman
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivanherman ←
15:08:38 <LukeWM> LeeF: have you done enough to work out whether the structure of the extension method is enough.
Lee Feigenbaum: have you done enough to work out whether the structure of the extension method is enough. ←
15:08:43 <LukeWM> LeeF: ?
Lee Feigenbaum: ? ←
15:08:55 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: yes, I think it will work.
Birte Glimm: yes, I think it will work. ←
15:09:01 <BirteGlimm> ?x rdf:type rdf:XMLLiteral
Birte Glimm: ?x rdf:type rdf:XMLLiteral ←
15:09:20 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: yes, I think it will work.
Birte Glimm: yes, I think it will work. ←
15:09:23 <chimezie> does the fact that we don't have an allocated editor for RIF-related entailment put us at risk for that regime?
Chimezie Ogbuji: does the fact that we don't have an allocated editor for RIF-related entailment put us at risk for that regime? ←
15:09:59 <LeeF> chimezie, i think we've always been at risk for that, given that it was 3rd or 4th in line for a time-permitting feature in the first place
Lee Feigenbaum: chimezie, i think we've always been at risk for that, given that it was 3rd or 4th in line for a time-permitting feature in the first place ←
15:10:00 <kasei> shouldn't that have legitimate answers if you aren't using d-entailment and you have a resource with that type?
Gregory Williams: shouldn't that have legitimate answers if you aren't using d-entailment and you have a resource with that type? ←
15:10:09 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
15:10:13 <LeeF> ...but i also hope that Birte and Bijan can edit that into the /Entailment document once we get to that
Lee Feigenbaum: ...but i also hope that Birte and Bijan can edit that into the /Entailment document once we get to that ←
15:10:16 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: talks with BirteGlimm about queries which are legal but don't have a legal answer.
Axel Polleres: talks with BirteGlimm about queries which are legal but don't have a legal answer. ←
15:10:18 <LeeF> ack LeeF
Lee Feigenbaum: ack LeeF ←
15:10:28 <LeeF> with help from our RIF-heads
Lee Feigenbaum: with help from our RIF-heads ←
15:10:29 <BirteGlimm> according to the spec no answers
Birte Glimm: according to the spec no answers ←
15:10:43 <chimezie> okay
Chimezie Ogbuji: okay ←
15:10:54 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments.
ACTION: Axel to go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments. ←
15:10:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-95 - Go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29]. ←
15:11:57 <BirteGlimm> sure
Birte Glimm: sure ←
15:12:05 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors.
ACTION: Axel to contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors. ←
15:12:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-96 - Contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29]. ←
15:12:32 <LukeWM> LeeF: please send parts of drafts to the mailing list when you have them.
Lee Feigenbaum: please send parts of drafts to the mailing list when you have them. ←
15:12:37 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: any more discussion?
Axel Polleres: any more discussion? ←
15:12:45 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: reviewers?
Axel Polleres: reviewers? ←
15:12:52 <LukeWM> chimezie: I'll volunteer.
Chimezie Ogbuji: I'll volunteer. ←
15:13:21 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for entailment: chime, lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for entailment: chime, lee ←
15:13:23 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: anyone else, Lee?
Axel Polleres: anyone else, Lee? ←
15:13:32 <BirteGlimm> LeeF, That's still useful ;-)
Birte Glimm: LeeF, That's still useful ;-) ←
15:13:42 <chimezie> i have to go unfortunately
Chimezie Ogbuji: i have to go unfortunately ←
15:13:47 <LukeWM> LeeF: I can look at completeness but not technical content.
Lee Feigenbaum: I can look at completeness but not technical content. ←
15:13:52 <AxelPolleres> topic: function library TF
15:14:21 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#Starting_Points
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#Starting_Points ←
15:14:25 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: function library TF has had a teleconference with Andy and Lee regarding the starting point.
Axel Polleres: function library TF has had a teleconference with Andy and Lee regarding the starting point. ←
15:15:01 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: we have agreed to propose a list of functions & operators based on Xquery
Axel Polleres: we have agreed to propose a list of functions & operators based on Xquery ←
15:15:09 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: Andy has a minimal list already.
Axel Polleres: Andy has a minimal list already. ←
15:15:22 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:FunctionLibrary
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:FunctionLibrary ←
15:15:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: all operators must have URL
Axel Polleres: all operators must have URL ←
15:16:34 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: issues around namespace, whether to reuse fn or not.
Axel Polleres: issues around namespace, whether to reuse fn or not. ←
15:16:42 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: aggregates aren't covered yet.
Axel Polleres: aggregates aren't covered yet. ←
15:17:20 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: need to wait for aggregate accessibility discussion
Axel Polleres: need to wait for aggregate accessibility discussion ←
15:17:28 <BirteGlimm> Should we say anything about test cases for different entailment regimes?
Birte Glimm: Should we say anything about test cases for different entailment regimes? ←
15:17:29 <SteveH> +1 to including in query 1.1 doc
Steve Harris: +1 to including in query 1.1 doc ←
15:17:30 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: this should be part of the query document.
Axel Polleres: this should be part of the query document. ←
15:17:43 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:17:48 <SteveH> ack me
Steve Harris: ack me ←
15:17:52 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: should this be a comment?
Axel Polleres: should this be a comment? ←
15:18:19 <LukeWM> SteveH: yes, we should say we plan to include a function library but say it isn't defined yet. To save time.
Steve Harris: yes, we should say we plan to include a function library but say it isn't defined yet. To save time. ←
15:18:31 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: an editor's note that points to the wiki?
Axel Polleres: an editor's note that points to the wiki? ←
15:18:55 <LukeWM> SteveH: we should be careful pointing to the wiki
Steve Harris: we should be careful pointing to the wiki ←
15:19:03 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: steveh to include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft
ACTION: steveh to include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft ←
15:19:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-97 - Include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29]. ←
15:19:07 <LukeWM> SteveH: I will include the comment
Steve Harris: I will include the comment ←
15:19:35 <SimonS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:BasicFederatedQuery
Simon Schenk: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:BasicFederatedQuery ←
15:19:43 <AxelPolleres> topic: federated query TF
15:20:37 <LukeWM> SimonS: design page on the wiki hasn't changed yet. The algebra operator syntax missing, but it doesn't seem to do anything - will send a mail to discuss this.
Simon Schenk: design page on the wiki hasn't changed yet. The algebra operator syntax missing, but it doesn't seem to do anything - will send a mail to discuss this. ←
15:21:02 <LukeWM> SimonS: one issue was that it should be an optional feature for security reasons.
Simon Schenk: one issue was that it should be an optional feature for security reasons. ←
15:21:03 <BirteGlimm> +1 to optional feature
Birte Glimm: +1 to optional feature ←
15:21:19 <LukeWM> SimonS: we should add a comment to the query document stating that it is optional.
Simon Schenk: we should add a comment to the query document stating that it is optional. ←
15:21:29 <kasei> optional features can mesh with service descriptions
Gregory Williams: optional features can mesh with service descriptions ←
15:21:49 <LukeWM> SimonS: it could be allowed for update if we choose a more complex form, but frankly I don't think it's a good idea for FPWD.
Simon Schenk: it could be allowed for update if we choose a more complex form, but frankly I don't think it's a good idea for FPWD. ←
15:22:14 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:22:29 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: we should add comments in query and service description, Steve & Greg.
Axel Polleres: we should add comments in query and service description, Steve & Greg. ←
15:22:56 <LukeWM> SteveH: the FPWD shouldn't mention this as it's time permitting - I forgot that the function library was also time permitting.
Steve Harris: the FPWD shouldn't mention this as it's time permitting - I forgot that the function library was also time permitting. ←
15:23:24 <SteveH> +1 to LeeF
Steve Harris: +1 to LeeF ←
15:23:26 <LukeWM> LeeF: lets not make a decision now, in general I agree with Steve. We need to ask ivanherman.
Lee Feigenbaum: lets not make a decision now, in general I agree with Steve. We need to ask ivanherman. ←
15:23:30 <SteveH> it's safer not to metion it, probably
Steve Harris: it's safer not to metion it, probably ←
15:23:42 <SteveH> can I lose my action to add it, for now
Steve Harris: can I lose my action to add it, for now ←
15:23:43 <AxelPolleres> decision on whether FPWD should mention time permitting features postponed.
Axel Polleres: decision on whether FPWD should mention time permitting features postponed. ←
15:23:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: I'll ask ivanherman
Axel Polleres: I'll ask ivanherman ←
15:24:19 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to ask ivanherman/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD.
ACTION: Axel to ask ivanherman/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD. ←
15:24:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Ask ivanherman/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-98 - Ask ivanherman/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29]. ←
15:24:26 <LukeWM> LeeF: I don't know how issues around IP exclusions work, anyone else?
Lee Feigenbaum: I don't know how issues around IP exclusions work, anyone else? ←
15:24:38 <LukeWM> LeeF, I hope that was a fair characterisation.
LeeF, I hope that was a fair characterisation. ←
15:25:10 <AxelPolleres> topic: property paths TF
15:25:31 <AxelPolleres> LukeWM: we are gathering ideas about scope.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: we are gathering ideas about scope. [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
15:26:25 <LukeWM> LukeWM: alex also proposed that we combine the feature PathLength into PropertyPaths.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: alex also proposed that we combine the feature PathLength into PropertyPaths. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe