13:59:57 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:59:57 <trackbot> Date: 10 August 2010
13:59:57 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute ←
14:00:05 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, this will be SPARQL ←
14:00:05 <Zakim> ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started ←
14:00:07 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:00:18 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-08-10
14:00:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:00:40 <AndyS> zakim, [IPCaller] is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, [IPCaller] is me ←
14:00:40 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:00:40 <NicholasH> zakim: who is on the call?
14:00:45 <SteveH_> bglimm, I got the last line I guess, sorry!
Steve Harris: bglimm, I got the last line I guess, sorry! ←
14:00:46 <Zakim> +pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon ←
14:00:47 <Zakim> + +1.617.245.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.245.aaaa ←
14:00:47 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
14:00:53 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:00:53 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:00:55 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:01:11 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:01:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, Garlik, AndyS, pgearon, +1.617.245.aaaa, Sandro, Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, Garlik, AndyS, pgearon, +1.617.245.aaaa, Sandro, Ivan ←
14:01:20 <LeeF> zakim, aaaa is me
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, aaaa is me ←
14:01:20 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF; got it ←
14:01:24 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
Steve Harris: Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me ←
14:01:24 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:01:31 <NicholasH> zakim, who is here?
Nicholas Humfrey: zakim, who is here? ←
14:01:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, SteveH, AndyS, pgearon, LeeF, Sandro, Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, SteveH, AndyS, pgearon, LeeF, Sandro, Ivan ←
14:01:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, SteveH, AxelPolleres, NicholasH, bglimm, LeeF, AndyS, ivan, karl, iv_an_ru, pgearon, sandro, trackbot, kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, SteveH, AxelPolleres, NicholasH, bglimm, LeeF, AndyS, ivan, karl, iv_an_ru, pgearon, sandro, trackbot, kasei ←
14:01:42 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-08-10
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-08-10 ←
14:02:07 <NicholasH> Zakim, ??P0 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??P0 is me ←
14:02:07 <Zakim> +NicholasH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NicholasH; got it ←
14:02:13 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
14:02:23 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
14:02:27 <ivan> just a minute
Ivan Herman: just a minute ←
14:02:31 <Zakim> +bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm ←
14:02:42 <LeeF> topic: admin
14:02:50 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
14:02:54 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-08-03
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-08-03 ←
14:02:59 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
14:03:20 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←
14:03:20 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←
14:03:40 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: +AxelPolleres ←
14:04:05 <AndyS> 1/ not typing, 2/ muted
Andy Seaborne: 1/ not typing, 2/ muted ←
14:04:12 <ivan> scribenick: ivan
(Scribe set to Ivan Herman)
14:04:37 <ivan> lee: propose to approve the minutes for last week
Lee Feigenbaum: propose to approve the minutes for last week ←
14:04:42 <ivan> ... carried once
... carried once ←
14:04:47 <ivan> .... carried twice
.... carried twice ←
14:04:48 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-08-03
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-08-03 ←
14:04:49 <AxelPolleres> seconded
Axel Polleres: seconded ←
14:04:51 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
14:04:58 <ivan> Topic: next meeting
14:05:00 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2010-08-17 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT
Lee Feigenbaum: Next regular meeting: 2010-08-17 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EDT ←
14:05:05 <ivan> next week, same time and place
next week, same time and place ←
14:05:10 <AndyS> My regrets for next week's meeting.
Andy Seaborne: My regrets for next week's meeting. ←
14:05:22 <ivan> ivan: I am not 100% sure to be around next week
Ivan Herman: I am not 100% sure to be around next week ←
14:05:27 <AxelPolleres> think Alex sent regrets (on vacation)
Axel Polleres: think Alex sent regrets (on vacation) ←
14:05:34 <LeeF> Regrets: Nico, Greg, Alex, Chime
14:05:36 <chimezie> Zakim, what is the passcode?
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, what is the passcode? ←
14:05:36 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), chimezie
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), chimezie ←
14:06:10 <ivan> Topic: go through open issues
14:06:18 <Zakim> + +1.216.636.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.216.636.aabb ←
14:06:22 <ivan> Lee: there are some issues we may want to close, see the agenda
Lee Feigenbaum: there are some issues we may want to close, see the agenda ←
14:06:31 <chimezie> Zakim, +1.216.636.aabb is me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, +1.216.636.aabb is me ←
14:06:31 <Zakim> +chimezie; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +chimezie; got it ←
14:06:40 <AxelPolleres> chime, sandro, could either of you look into http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Aug/0004.html and draft a reply?
Axel Polleres: chime, sandro, could either of you look into http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Aug/0004.html and draft a reply? ←
14:07:05 <ivan> lee: any other topic for the agenda
Lee Feigenbaum: any other topic for the agenda ←
14:07:12 <sandro> AxelPolleres, I don't think that should be me, no.
Sandro Hawke: AxelPolleres, I don't think that should be me, no. ←
14:07:12 <chimezie> yeah, i was looking at that
Chimezie Ogbuji: yeah, i was looking at that ←
14:07:18 <ivan> AxelPolleres: an additional comment from timbl, we may want to reply
Axel Polleres: an additional comment from timbl, we may want to reply ←
14:07:36 <ivan> lee: it is better if chime looks at it, and see if there is a wg attention he may bring it up on the list
Lee Feigenbaum: it is better if chime looks at it, and see if there is a wg attention he may bring it up on the list ←
14:08:11 <AxelPolleres> I'll put chime responsible on the comments page, thanks!
Axel Polleres: I'll put chime responsible on the comments page, thanks! ←
14:08:16 <LeeF> topic: Issue Rodeo
14:08:36 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/open
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/open ←
14:08:42 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, mute me ←
14:08:42 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie should now be muted ←
14:08:48 <ivan> start with issue 48
14:08:54 <LeeF> ISSUE-48?
14:08:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- Is DELETE too verbose? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-48 -- Is DELETE too verbose? -- open ←
14:08:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/48
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/48 ←
14:09:04 <sandro> no description. :-/
Sandro Hawke: no description. :-/ ←
14:09:25 <ivan> lee: issue 48 not repeating the pattern when the only thing you want is to delete a pattern
Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-48 not repeating the pattern when the only thing you want is to delete a pattern ←
14:09:35 <LeeF> DELETE WHERE { ... }
Lee Feigenbaum: DELETE WHERE { ... } ←
14:09:47 <ivan> ... the decision a few month ago was to have delete where {...}
... the decision a few month ago was to have delete where {...} ←
14:09:58 <ivan> ... we already discussed it and resolved it
... we already discussed it and resolved it ←
14:10:02 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-48 via current DELETE WHERE { tempalte } abbreviation as in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#t416
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-48 via current DELETE WHERE { template } abbreviation as in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#t416 ←
14:10:03 <ivan> ... the proposal is to close the issue
... the proposal is to close the issue ←
14:10:15 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
14:10:24 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:10:24 <ivan> s/tempalte/template/
14:10:27 <ivan> +1
+1 ←
14:10:31 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
14:10:32 <chimezie> +1
Chimezie Ogbuji: +1 ←
14:10:47 <NicholasH> +1
Nicholas Humfrey: +1 ←
14:10:52 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
14:10:56 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
14:10:56 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:10:57 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-48 via current DELETE WHERE { tempalte } abbreviation as in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#t416
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-48 via current DELETE WHERE { template } abbreviation as in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml#t416 ←
14:11:06 <LeeF> trackbot, close ISSUE-48
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ISSUE-48 ←
14:11:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-48 Is DELETE too verbose? closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-48 Is DELETE too verbose? closed ←
14:11:11 <ivan> s/tempalte/template/
14:11:13 <LeeF> ISSUE-49?
14:11:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 -- Is a graph an information resource -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-49 -- Is a graph an information resource -- open ←
14:11:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/49
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/49 ←
14:11:24 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:11:24 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie should no longer be muted ←
14:11:33 <ivan> lee: this is something kjetill raised a while ago, chime added section 8 in the draft
Lee Feigenbaum: this is something kjetill raised a while ago, chime added section 8 in the draft ←
14:11:40 <sandro> link to section 8 ?
Sandro Hawke: link to section 8 ? ←
14:11:42 <ivan> ... it explaines http-range
... it explains http-range ←
14:11:46 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#httpRange-14
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#httpRange-14 ←
14:11:48 <ivan> s/explaines/explains
14:12:09 <ivan> lee: chime, is that correct?
Lee Feigenbaum: chime, is that correct? ←
14:12:14 <ivan> chimezie: yes, it does
Chimezie Ogbuji: yes, it does ←
14:12:32 <ivan> sandro: I have not had the time to read it
Sandro Hawke: I have not had the time to read it ←
14:12:51 <ivan> ... is the graph an inform resource
... is the graph an inform resource ←
14:12:58 <ivan> chimezie: yes it is
Chimezie Ogbuji: yes it is ←
14:13:12 <ivan> lee: sandro would you want to return to that later?
Lee Feigenbaum: sandro would you want to return to that later? ←
14:13:15 <ivan> sandro: yes
Sandro Hawke: yes ←
14:13:15 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/51
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/51 ←
14:13:19 <LeeF> ISSUE-51?
14:13:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- Shall dataset clauses be allowed in SPARQL/update? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 -- Shall dataset clauses be allowed in SPARQL/update? -- open ←
14:13:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/51
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/51 ←
14:13:47 <ivan> Lee: how do you define a dataset for a graph pattern matching in update
Lee Feigenbaum: how do you define a dataset for a graph pattern matching in update ←
14:14:00 <ivan> .... we spent a lot of time on that, including a task force
.... we spent a lot of time on that, including a task force ←
14:14:16 <ivan> ... the document has the text the tf agreed on
... the document has the text the tf agreed on ←
14:14:25 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-51 based on the current design of WITH/USING/USING NAMED to specify the RDF dataset for an Update operation
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-51 based on the current design of WITH/USING/USING NAMED to specify the RDF dataset for an Update operation ←
14:14:57 <ivan> +1
+1 ←
14:15:25 <ivan> lee: paul, from your point of view, this is stable, isn't it?
Lee Feigenbaum: paul, from your point of view, this is stable, isn't it? ←
14:15:32 <ivan> pgearon: yes
Paula Gearon: yes ←
14:15:42 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 based on the current design of WITH/USING/USING NAMED to specify the RDF dataset for an Update operation
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 based on the current design of WITH/USING/USING NAMED to specify the RDF dataset for an Update operation ←
14:15:48 <LeeF> trackbot, close ISSUE-51
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ISSUE-51 ←
14:15:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 Shall dataset clauses be allowed in SPARQL/update? closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 Shall dataset clauses be allowed in SPARQL/update? closed ←
14:15:55 <LeeF> ISSUE-52?
14:15:55 <trackbot> ISSUE-52 -- Do we need the availability of an unnamed graph in SD? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-52 -- Do we need the availability of an unnamed graph in SD? -- open ←
14:15:55 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/52
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/52 ←
14:16:01 <sandro> Lee okay to return to 49 at any point now.
Sandro Hawke: Lee okay to return to 49 at any point now. ←
14:16:21 <AndyS> Is it ever not available?
Andy Seaborne: Is it ever not available? ←
14:16:24 <ivan> lee: discussing this without greg is difficult
Lee Feigenbaum: discussing this without greg is difficult ←
14:16:50 <ivan> lee: we will come back to that
Lee Feigenbaum: we will come back to that ←
14:16:59 <ivan> lee: back to issue 49,
Lee Feigenbaum: back to ISSUE-49, ←
14:17:16 <ivan> sandro: the text in the draft, I do not disagree with anything it says
Sandro Hawke: the text in the draft, I do not disagree with anything it says ←
14:17:17 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#httpRange-14
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#httpRange-14 ←
14:17:22 <ivan> +1
+1 ←
14:17:34 <AndyS> 0
Andy Seaborne: 0 ←
14:17:45 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#httpRange-14, AndyS abstraining
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-49 based on the current text in Section 8 at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#httpRange-14, AndyS abstaining ←
14:17:48 <sandro> +1 the text isn't perfect :-] but it's good enough and not worth more debate
Sandro Hawke: +1 the text isn't perfect :-] but it's good enough and not worth more debate ←
14:17:50 <ivan> member:trackbot, close ISSUE-49
member:trackbot, close ISSUE-49 ←
14:17:52 <LeeF> s/abstraining/abstaining
14:18:00 <chimezie> Sandro: if you have feedback on how to clarify the text would be welcome :)
Sandro Hawke: if you have feedback on how to clarify the text would be welcome :) [ Scribe Assist by Chimezie Ogbuji ] ←
14:18:00 <ivan> trackbot, close ISSUE-49
14:18:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 Is a graph an information resource closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-49 Is a graph an information resource closed ←
14:18:16 <LeeF> ISSUE-55?
14:18:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-55 -- Can/how can a separator string be supplied to the GROUP_CONCAT aggregate? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-55 -- Can/how can a separator string be supplied to the GROUP_CONCAT aggregate? -- open ←
14:18:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/55
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/55 ←
14:18:48 <ivan> lee: the decision is to add a syntax to define the extra separator character
Lee Feigenbaum: the decision is to add a syntax to define the extra separator character ←
14:18:53 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:18:56 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-55 based on the use of a scalar argument SEPARATOR=";" as in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#aggregates
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-55 based on the use of a scalar argument SEPARATOR=";" as in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#aggregates ←
14:19:05 <LeeF> ack ivan
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan ←
14:19:26 <LeeF> ivan: when I looked at the text itself, i realized that GROUP_CONCAT Is almost not defined in the document - I had to go to a mysql document to find out what it means
Ivan Herman: when I looked at the text itself, i realized that GROUP_CONCAT Is almost not defined in the document - I had to go to a mysql document to find out what it means [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:19:34 <LeeF> ... think it could use more editorial explanation
Lee Feigenbaum: ... think it could use more editorial explanation ←
14:19:50 <ivan> lee: steve, is it on your radar
Lee Feigenbaum: steve, is it on your radar ←
14:20:04 <ivan> steve: it needs more text
Steve Harris: it needs more text ←
14:20:18 <ivan> ... technically it is correct
... technically it is correct ←
14:20:43 <ivan> +1
+1 ←
14:21:07 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
14:21:16 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-55 based on the use of a scalar argument SEPARATOR=";" as in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#aggregates, LeeF abstaining
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-55 based on the use of a scalar argument SEPARATOR=";" as in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#aggregates, LeeF abstaining ←
14:21:17 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:21:19 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:21:25 <LeeF> trackbot, close ISSUE-55
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ISSUE-55 ←
14:21:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-55 Can/how can a separator string be supplied to the GROUP_CONCAT aggregate? closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-55 Can/how can a separator string be supplied to the GROUP_CONCAT aggregate? closed ←
14:21:32 <LeeF> ISSUE-56?
14:21:32 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- Does HTTP PATCH affect either the SPARQL Protocol or the SPARQL Uniform etc. HTTP etc. Protocol? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-56 -- Does HTTP PATCH affect either the SPARQL Protocol or the SPARQL Uniform etc. HTTP etc. Protocol? -- open ←
14:21:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/56
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/56 ←
14:21:50 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 based on the text at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#http-patch
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 based on the text at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#http-patch ←
14:22:02 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:22:12 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:22:33 <LeeF> ack ivan
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan ←
14:22:35 <ivan> ivan: chime, did timbl's comment address/affect this part?
Ivan Herman: chime, did timbl's comment address/affect this part? ←
14:23:45 <LeeF> chimezie: we might want to wait - i have one open question - if you direct a PATCH at a graph IRI it suggests that you are only manipulating that graph, but SPARQL Update can affect other graphs
Chimezie Ogbuji: we might want to wait - i have one open question - if you direct a PATCH at a graph IRI it suggests that you are only manipulating that graph, but SPARQL Update can affect other graphs [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:24:01 <LeeF> ... you might return a status code like Method Not Supported, but it's uncertain
Lee Feigenbaum: ... you might return a status code like Method Not Supported, but it's uncertain ←
14:24:11 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:24:26 <LeeF> AndyS: What is the significance of "RECOMMENDED" in capital text?
Andy Seaborne: What is the significance of "RECOMMENDED" in capital text? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:24:49 <LeeF> chimezie: RFC 2119 allows RECOMMENDED to be used in plcae of SHOULD
Chimezie Ogbuji: RFC 2119 allows RECOMMENDED to be used in plcae of SHOULD [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:25:04 <LeeF> ... i use RECOMMENDED where I did not want the same force of SHOULD
Lee Feigenbaum: ... i use RECOMMENDED where I did not want the same force of SHOULD ←
14:25:09 <ivan> chimezie: I use recommended when i did not want to use the same force than should
Chimezie Ogbuji: I use recommended when i did not want to use the same force than should ←
14:25:33 <ivan> AndyS: then i am not very happy with the text; patch is not widely used and implemented yet
Andy Seaborne: then i am not very happy with the text; patch is not widely used and implemented yet ←
14:25:51 <ivan> lee: it is also not good to use rfc terms in an informal sections
Lee Feigenbaum: it is also not good to use rfc terms in an informal sections ←
14:25:55 <SteveH> I'm not sure I agree that "few" systems support PATCH, libcurl does, and many things are based on that
Steve Harris: I'm not sure I agree that "few" systems support PATCH, libcurl does, and many things are based on that ←
14:26:07 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
14:26:24 <ivan> AndyS: we should then make it a bit weaker, we should be noting that _if_ it is used, it has a particular meaning
Andy Seaborne: we should then make it a bit weaker, we should be noting that _if_ it is used, it has a particular meaning ←
14:26:27 <SteveH> q-
Steve Harris: q- ←
14:26:36 <ivan> ... recommending should is quite strong
... recommending should is quite strong ←
14:26:52 <ivan> ... that means that is the way it should happen unless you have good reason to do something else
... that means that is the way it should happen unless you have good reason to do something else ←
14:26:56 <ivan> chimezie: ok, understood
Chimezie Ogbuji: ok, understood ←
14:27:07 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:27:10 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
14:27:15 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:27:55 <ivan> AndyS: is this discussion on sparql protocol rather than an http protocol issue
Andy Seaborne: is this discussion on sparql protocol rather than an http protocol issue ←
14:28:24 <ivan> chimezie: we did not reach a conclusion on that, there was then an additional comment why we did not have that
Chimezie Ogbuji: we did not reach a conclusion on that, there was then an additional comment why we did not have that ←
14:28:35 <ivan> ... that is the reason why it is informative
... that is the reason why it is informative ←
14:28:56 <ivan> AndyS: that is confusing because people will and do use PUT with sparql update requests
Andy Seaborne: that is confusing because people will and do use POST with sparql update requests ←
14:29:04 <LeeF> s/PUT/POST
14:29:24 <ivan> chimezie: a post 'here' and a post for other protocols will be different, but there is an ambiguity in general that we have to document
Chimezie Ogbuji: a post 'here' and a post for other protocols will be different, but there is an ambiguity in general that we have to document ←
14:30:09 <ivan> LeeF: at some point we will have to find dedicated time to look at the protocol and define the relationships more exactly
Lee Feigenbaum: at some point we will have to find dedicated time to look at the protocol and define the relationships more exactly ←
14:30:26 <ivan> ... maybe an overview document that axel and i work on will have to clarify that
... maybe an overview document that axel and i work on will have to clarify that ←
14:31:10 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call
ACTION: Lee to make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call ←
14:31:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-290 - Make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-08-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-290 - Make sure that the relationship between SPARQL protocol and HTTP protocol is clearly laid out before Last Call [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-08-17]. ←
14:32:09 <ivan> SteveH: what was the reason we split the two documents
Steve Harris: what was the reason we split the two documents ←
14:32:16 <AndyS> q-
Andy Seaborne: q- ←
14:32:25 <ivan> lee: we never had a strong discussion on why we have them separate
Lee Feigenbaum: we never had a strong discussion on why we have them separate ←
14:32:31 <pgearon> +q
Paula Gearon: +q ←
14:32:34 <ivan> ... the http was a pretty new document
... the http was a pretty new document ←
14:33:02 <pgearon> q-
Paula Gearon: q- ←
14:33:06 <ivan> chimezie: I recall that as a major motivation, we also wanted to have a strong RESTFUL constraint
Chimezie Ogbuji: I recall that as a major motivation, we also wanted to have a strong RESTFUL constraint ←
14:33:14 <ivan> SteveH: riiiight:-(
Steve Harris: riiiight:-( ←
14:33:37 <ivan> ... the protocol document with update is restful...
... the protocol document with update is restful... ←
14:33:46 <ivan> ... it was just an idle thought
... it was just an idle thought ←
14:33:53 <ivan> lee: it is still something we can consider
Lee Feigenbaum: it is still something we can consider ←
14:34:05 <ivan> ... to define the overall relationships between the two
... to define the overall relationships between the two ←
14:34:07 <ivan> ... we will consider it
... we will consider it ←
14:34:22 <ivan> lee: the remaining 3 issues remain open
Lee Feigenbaum: the remaining 3 issues remain open ←
14:34:53 <ivan> ... 57 is close to a resolution, leaning towards the features with other but we backed off
... 57 is close to a resolution, leaning towards the features with other but we backed off ←
14:35:22 <ivan> ... various implementers took actions to send descriptions to the mailing list, and I have an actions with test cases, that is not yet done
... various implementers took actions to send descriptions to the mailing list, and I have an actions with test cases, that is not yet done ←
14:35:45 <ivan> ... issue 58, register mime type for sparql
... ISSUE-58, register mime type for sparql ←
14:36:03 <ivan> sandro: what we do is to add some text into the document
Sandro Hawke: what we do is to add some text into the document ←
14:36:26 <ivan> ... from the process perspective it can go anywhere, it has to be a rec track one and that is it
... from the process perspective it can go anywhere, it has to be a rec track one and that is it ←
14:36:30 <AndyS> Yes
Andy Seaborne: Yes ←
14:36:35 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#mediaType
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#mediaType ←
14:36:37 <ivan> lee: the query one is in the query document
Lee Feigenbaum: the query one is in the query document ←
14:36:38 <AxelPolleres> had two more potential issues http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0149.html not sure whether we need to add them here... but also don't want to forget them
Axel Polleres: had two more potential issues http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0149.html not sure whether we need to add them here... but also don't want to forget them ←
14:36:56 <ivan> lee: it is probably the update document then
Lee Feigenbaum: it is probably the update document then ←
14:37:09 <ivan> sandro: it is corrct
Sandro Hawke: it is correct ←
14:37:18 <ivan> s/corrct/correct/
14:37:59 <ivan> sandro: I will send a mail to paul with a possible alternative formatting
Sandro Hawke: I will send a mail to paul with a possible alternative formatting ←
14:38:21 <ivan> pgearon: I would have thought it should go in a document that has anything to do with protocol
Paula Gearon: I would have thought it should go in a document that has anything to do with protocol ←
14:38:28 <AndyS> MIME type is related to syntax/language
Andy Seaborne: MIME type is related to syntax/language ←
14:38:28 <ivan> lee: we had it in query...
Lee Feigenbaum: we had it in query... ←
14:38:33 <sandro> Here's how I did the RIF one, following the IETF formatting more: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-core/#Appendix:_RIF_Media_Type_Registration
Sandro Hawke: Here's how I did the RIF one, following the IETF formatting more: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-core/#Appendix:_RIF_Media_Type_Registration ←
14:38:51 <ivan> lee: and then?
Lee Feigenbaum: and then? ←
14:39:29 <ivan> sandro: once it is published (probably in LC), someone has to raise on the ietf list, and when we get to rec, there is another process to do
Sandro Hawke: once it is published (probably in LC), someone has to raise on the ietf list, and when we get to rec, there is another process to do ←
14:39:37 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask about two additional (protocol related) issues
Axel Polleres: q+ to ask about two additional (protocol related) issues ←
14:39:45 <ivan> lee: paul, if it is o.k. with you, I would prefer you'd put it into the update doc
Lee Feigenbaum: paul, if it is o.k. with you, I would prefer you'd put it into the update doc ←
14:39:52 <LeeF> ACTION: Paul to work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc.
ACTION: Paul to work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc. ←
14:39:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-291 - Work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc. [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-08-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-291 - Work MIME type registration information into SPARQL Update document based on Sandro's suggestion for formatting etc. [on Paul Gearon - due 2010-08-17]. ←
14:40:00 <ivan> pgearon: the more places it appears in the better is, no problems
Paula Gearon: the more places it appears in the better is, no problems ←
14:40:03 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:40:07 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←
14:40:07 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about two additional (protocol related) issues
Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about two additional (protocol related) issues ←
14:40:30 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0149.html
Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010JulSep/0149.html ←
14:40:44 <ivan> AxelPolleres: I had additional problems and I wonder whether they should go to issue list
Axel Polleres: I had additional problems and I wonder whether they should go to issue list ←
14:41:01 <ivan> ... do we need a return format for update?
... do we need a return format for update? ←
14:41:15 <ivan> ... if we simply get yes/no than we may be fine with the old one
... if we simply get yes/no than we may be fine with the old one ←
14:41:20 <LeeF> ISSUE: What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol?
ISSUE: What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol? ←
14:41:20 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-60 - What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/60/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-60 - What does the response to a SPARQL Update request look like in SPARQL protocol? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/60/edit . ←
14:41:28 <AndyS> I had assumed the result body of an update would be empty.
Andy Seaborne: I had assumed the result body of an update would be empty. ←
14:41:29 <ivan> ... the other question where we would say something about transactions
... the other question where we would say something about transactions ←
14:41:34 <LeeF> AndyS++
Lee Feigenbaum: AndyS++ ←
14:41:37 <ivan> ... where do we put it
... where do we put it ←
14:41:45 <ivan> ... probably the protocol document
... probably the protocol document ←
14:42:16 <ivan> lee: my gut feeling is that the content of a response will be empty for update, but it is better to have a formal issue on that
Lee Feigenbaum: my gut feeling is that the content of a response will be empty for update, but it is better to have a formal issue on that ←
14:42:27 <ivan> AxelPolleres: we had discussion about conveying additional infos
Axel Polleres: we had discussion about conveying additional infos ←
14:42:30 <SteveH> would like to put informative stuff in there, like number of triples added etc
Steve Harris: would like to put informative stuff in there, like number of triples added etc ←
14:42:32 <pgearon> http 200/400/500 are the most likely responses
Paula Gearon: http 200/400/500 are the most likely responses ←
14:42:55 <pgearon> oh, and 401
Paula Gearon: oh, and 401 ←
14:42:58 <ivan> lee: the other one probably just need the editors to take an action on documenting adomicity
Lee Feigenbaum: the other one probably just need the editors to take an action on documenting adomicity ←
14:43:03 <SteveH> 403
Steve Harris: 403 ←
14:43:17 <SteveH> and 201
Steve Harris: and 201 ←
14:43:22 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document
ACTION: Lee to make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document ←
14:43:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-292 - Make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-08-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-292 - Make sure text on transactionality/concurrency gets added to protocol document [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-08-17]. ←
14:43:23 <SteveH> oh, only for PUT
Steve Harris: oh, only for PUT ←
14:43:27 <AndyS> any HTTP response code
Andy Seaborne: any HTTP response code ←
14:43:44 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS
Steve Harris: +1 to AndyS ←
14:44:12 <chimezie> ACTION: chimezie to modify HTTP Update document to reduce language regarding PATCH and to not use RFC 2119 language
ACTION: chimezie to modify HTTP Update document to reduce language regarding PATCH and to not use RFC 2119 language ←
14:44:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-293 - Modify HTTP Update document to reduce language regarding PATCH and to not use RFC 2119 language [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2010-08-17].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-293 - Modify HTTP Update document to reduce language regarding PATCH and to not use RFC 2119 language [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2010-08-17]. ←
14:44:13 <ivan> lee: the question was whether we would like to have a shortcut for update; we are not yet ready to close that
Lee Feigenbaum: the question was whether we would like to have a shortcut for update; we are not yet ready to close that ←
14:44:17 <AxelPolleres> can one add additional information to the success responses? e.g. if the endpoint wants to provide some additional information such as "300 triples added" ?
Axel Polleres: can one add additional information to the success responses? e.g. if the endpoint wants to provide some additional information such as "300 triples added" ? ←
14:44:39 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
14:45:00 <ivan> Topic: document publishing status/plans
14:45:21 <ivan> Lee: how far away are we from a pretty stable document
Lee Feigenbaum: how far away are we from a pretty stable document ←
14:45:29 <Zakim> +Garlik
Zakim IRC Bot: +Garlik ←
14:45:30 <ivan> ... do we need one more publication before LC
... do we need one more publication before LC ←
14:45:37 <SteveH> Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me
Steve Harris: Zakim, Garlik is temporarily me ←
14:45:37 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:45:53 <ivan> ... if the document is not yet ready for that, we may need an in-depth review
... if the document is not yet ready for that, we may need an in-depth review ←
14:46:13 <ivan> ... looking at editorials as well as content wise
... looking at editorials as well as content wise ←
14:46:17 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:46:42 <LeeF> ack ivan
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan ←
14:47:37 <ivan> lee: query?
Lee Feigenbaum: query? ←
14:48:16 <ivan> SteveH: we need one more round before LC; there is quite a bit more content to be added
Steve Harris: we need one more round before LC; there is quite a bit more content to be added ←
14:48:38 <ivan> AndyS: yes, I agree, it would be a good idea to have a non-lc publication
Andy Seaborne: yes, I agree, it would be a good idea to have a non-lc publication ←
14:48:57 <ivan> ... i have been working on the property path part, that has to be moved across to the query document
... i have been working on the property path part, that has to be moved across to the query document ←
14:49:24 <ivan> ... the main thing to move sections into the algebra, and this has to be quite slick before lc
... the main thing to move sections into the algebra, and this has to be quite slick before lc ←
14:49:43 <ivan> lee: do you want to move the pp into the document before next publication
Lee Feigenbaum: do you want to move the pp into the document before next publication ←
14:49:46 <ivan> AndyS: yes
Andy Seaborne: yes ←
14:50:06 <SteveH> prefer to wait til after changes
Steve Harris: prefer to wait til after changes ←
14:50:21 <ivan> lee: do you want a comprehensive review now or only after things are done that you want to do
Lee Feigenbaum: do you want a comprehensive review now or only after things are done that you want to do ←
14:50:37 <ivan> AndyS: i need a really good one for the lc
Andy Seaborne: i need a really good one for the lc ←
14:50:53 <ivan> ... and there is only that much review people can do
... and there is only that much review people can do ←
14:51:03 <ivan> q+
q+ ←
14:51:07 <LeeF> ack ivan
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan ←
14:51:59 <ivan> lee: update?
Lee Feigenbaum: update? ←
14:52:14 <AxelPolleres> I think we should have at least one new reviewer, obviously previous reviewers should also be welcome to give further comments.
Axel Polleres: I think we should have at least one new reviewer, obviously previous reviewers should also be welcome to give further comments. ←
14:52:25 <ivan> pgearon: a few things have to go in, that has to be done before we have a review
Paula Gearon: a few things have to go in, that has to be done before we have a review ←
14:53:15 <LeeF> potential across the board approach:
Lee Feigenbaum: potential across the board approach: ←
14:53:26 <LeeF> 1) Editors put into documents all missing pieces
Lee Feigenbaum: 1) Editors put into documents all missing pieces ←
14:53:36 <LeeF> 2) Publish documents as public WD
Lee Feigenbaum: 2) Publish documents as public WD ←
14:53:47 <LeeF> 3) Begin in-group comprehensive reviews of all documents
Lee Feigenbaum: 3) Begin in-group comprehensive reviews of all documents ←
14:53:56 <LeeF> 4) Incorporate review changes into Last Call-ready editors drafts
Lee Feigenbaum: 4) Incorporate review changes into Last Call-ready editors drafts ←
14:54:06 <LeeF> 5) Publish Last Call
Lee Feigenbaum: 5) Publish Last Call ←
14:54:14 <ivan> 6) be happy
6) be happy ←
14:54:25 <AndyS> Will next pub round [*] include tests?
Andy Seaborne: Will next pub round [*] include tests? ←
14:54:38 <bglimm> 6)
Birte Glimm: 6) ←
14:55:05 <ivan> lee: birte, chime, are you happy with that?
Lee Feigenbaum: birte, chime, are you happy with that? ←
14:55:23 <ivan> chimezie: i could use some community discussion before publication
Chimezie Ogbuji: i could use some community discussion before publication ←
14:55:24 <AxelPolleres> AndyS, I think we should include tests.
Axel Polleres: AndyS, I think we should include tests. ←
14:55:24 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:55:24 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should no longer be muted ←
14:55:32 <ivan> ... eg, timbl's comment
... eg, timbl's comment ←
14:55:57 <ivan> ... or do you plan to have comment incorporated before publications
... or do you plan to have comment incorporated before publications ←
14:56:36 <ivan> ... if you could distill tim's comment before next call, and see what reactions we get also on the swig list
... if you could distill tim's comment before next call, and see what reactions we get also on the swig list ←
14:56:50 <ivan> chimezie: if I can write down the issues for next week, that would be good
Chimezie Ogbuji: if I can write down the issues for next week, that would be good ←
14:57:13 <ivan> LeeF: the wg has to have a quick turn around; ie, the answers should come from the wg
Lee Feigenbaum: the wg has to have a quick turn around; ie, the answers should come from the wg ←
14:58:25 <ivan> --- adjourned ---
--- adjourned --- ←
Formatted by CommonScribe