13:53:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-sparql-irc ←
13:53:36 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:53:38 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
13:53:38 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes ←
13:53:39 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:53:39 <trackbot> Date: 02 November 2010
13:53:41 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, this will be SPARQL ←
13:53:41 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes ←
13:58:06 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
13:58:13 <Zakim> + +1.617.245.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.245.aaaa ←
13:58:20 <LeeF> AlexPassant, AndyS, AxelPolleres, bglimm, ivan, NicoM -- the call starts in 5 minutes today :)
Lee Feigenbaum: AlexPassant, AndyS, AxelPolleres, bglimm, ivan, NicoM -- the call starts in 5 minutes today :) ←
13:58:26 <LeeF> zakim, aaaa is me
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, aaaa is me ←
13:58:26 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF; got it ←
13:58:36 <LeeF> Chair: Lee Feigenbaum
13:58:38 <Zakim> +??P17
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17 ←
13:58:45 <AndyS> zakim, ??P17 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P17 is me ←
13:58:45 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
13:59:01 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
13:59:01 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
13:59:02 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
13:59:07 <LeeF> Regrets: Carlos, Souri, Sandro
13:59:10 <Zakim> +NicoM
Zakim IRC Bot: +NicoM ←
13:59:23 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-11-02
13:59:43 <Zakim> +bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm ←
13:59:59 <kasei> hrm. cambridge zakim just dropped my call.
Gregory Williams: hrm. cambridge zakim just dropped my call. ←
14:00:11 <LeeF> zakim, please be nicer to kasei
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, please be nicer to kasei ←
14:00:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'please be nicer to kasei', LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'please be nicer to kasei', LeeF ←
14:00:24 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
14:00:24 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
14:00:27 <Zakim> + +1.310.729.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.310.729.aabb ←
14:00:37 <kasei> Zakim, aabb is me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, aabb is me ←
14:00:37 <Zakim> +kasei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei; got it ←
14:00:38 <LeeF> zakim, thanks
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, thanks ←
14:00:38 <Zakim> you are very welcome, LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: you are very welcome, LeeF ←
14:01:35 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
14:01:35 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should now be muted ←
14:01:40 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
14:02:42 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:02:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm (muted), kasei (muted), MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm (muted), kasei (muted), MattPerry ←
14:03:07 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:03:16 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-26
PROPOSED: Approve minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-26 ←
14:03:23 <Zakim> + +3539149aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +3539149aacc ←
14:03:39 <AlexPassant> Zakim, +3539149aacc is me
Alexandre Passant: Zakim, +3539149aacc is me ←
14:03:39 <Zakim> +AlexPassant; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexPassant; got it ←
14:04:15 <LeeF> Scribenick: AlexPassant
(Scribe set to Alexandre Passant)
14:04:22 <Zakim> +pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon ←
14:05:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:06:57 <pgearon> Hi Lee
Paula Gearon: Hi Lee ←
14:07:34 <LeeF> zakim, IPcaller is SteveH
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, IPcaller is SteveH ←
14:07:34 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:07:43 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:07:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm (muted), kasei (muted), MattPerry, AlexPassant, pgearon, SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm (muted), kasei (muted), MattPerry, AlexPassant, pgearon, SteveH ←
14:08:11 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-26
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-10-26 ←
14:08:25 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2010-11-09 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Chime Ogbuji)
Lee Feigenbaum: Next regular meeting: 2010-11-09 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Chime Ogbuji) ←
14:08:30 <SteveH> Zakim, who's on the phone?
Steve Harris: Zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:08:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm (muted), kasei (muted), MattPerry, AlexPassant, pgearon, SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm (muted), kasei (muted), MattPerry, AlexPassant, pgearon, SteveH ←
14:08:37 <AlexPassant> LeeF: Any changes on last week minutes ?
Lee Feigenbaum: Any changes on last week minutes ? ←
14:08:39 <bglimm> Next week is ISWC
Birte Glimm: Next week is ISWC ←
14:08:50 <AlexPassant> ... some people at ISWC next week
... some people at ISWC next week ←
14:08:54 <ivan> I will be at iswc
Ivan Herman: I will be at iswc ←
14:08:55 <SteveH> will be at ISWC
Steve Harris: will be at ISWC ←
14:08:56 <bglimm> I'll be there
Birte Glimm: I'll be there ←
14:08:58 <AlexPassant> ... but meeting back at normal time
... but meeting back at normal time ←
14:09:00 <AlexPassant> I'll be at ISWC
I'll be at ISWC ←
14:09:39 <AlexPassant> ... ISWC attendees will probably won't join
... ISWC attendees will probably won't join ←
14:10:02 <AlexPassant> ... but regular call with people that can attend
... but regular call with people that can attend ←
14:11:04 <AlexPassant> ... agenda for next week: shortcuts for updates
... agenda for next week: shortcuts for updates ←
14:11:17 <AlexPassant> ... one of the full remaining thing to formalise grammar in update / query
... one of the full remaining thing to formalise grammar in update / query ←
14:11:29 <AndyS> yes - getting the grammar sorted would help me.
Andy Seaborne: yes - getting the grammar sorted would help me. ←
14:12:54 <NicoM> LeeF, got a glass roof?
Nico Michaelis: LeeF, got a glass roof? ←
14:13:13 <AlexPassant> topic: SELECT * behavior
14:14:01 <AlexPassant> LeeF: need to agree on the select * behavior
Lee Feigenbaum: need to agree on the select * behavior ←
14:14:20 <AlexPassant> ... in-scope variables (bound variables)
... in-scope variables (bound variables) ←
14:14:25 <AlexPassant> ... consensus around that
... consensus around that ←
14:14:43 <AlexPassant> ... shouldn't select variables inside the subquery
... shouldn't select variables inside the subquery ←
14:14:58 <LeeF> seems that SELECT * { { SELECT ?x { ... ?x ?y ... } } } just means ?x
Lee Feigenbaum: seems that SELECT * { { SELECT ?x { ... ?x ?y ... } } } just means ?x ←
14:15:19 <AndyS> agree
Andy Seaborne: agree ←
14:15:20 <pgearon> +1 absolutely
Paula Gearon: +1 absolutely ←
14:15:22 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:15:31 <NicoM> +1
Nico Michaelis: +1 ←
14:15:31 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
14:16:15 <AlexPassant> ... what about variables that are hidden as being part of aggregate query but not in a GROUP BY
... what about variables that are hidden as being part of aggregate query but not in a GROUP BY ←
14:16:22 <LeeF> SELECT * { ... ?x ?y ... } GROUP BY ?x
Lee Feigenbaum: SELECT * { ... ?x ?y ... } GROUP BY ?x ←
14:16:43 <SteveH> that's the same as SELECT DISTINCT ?x { ... ?x ?y ... }
Steve Harris: that's the same as SELECT DISTINCT ?x { ... ?x ?y ... } ←
14:17:21 <LeeF> 1/ * stands for ?x and ?y, so this query is an error because you can't select ?y
Lee Feigenbaum: 1/ * stands for ?x and ?y, so this query is an error because you can't select ?y ←
14:17:42 <LeeF> 2/ * stands for only the variables that are legally select'able at this point - which means just ?x because of the aggregating
Lee Feigenbaum: 2/ * stands for only the variables that are legally select'able at this point - which means just ?x because of the aggregating ←
14:17:49 <SteveH> ... if you limit it to just "bindable" ones
Steve Harris: ... if you limit it to just "bindable" ones ←
14:18:28 <SteveH> I think we're in a position to descide
Steve Harris: I think we're in a position to descide ←
14:18:32 <AlexPassant> ... is there any option besides these 2 ones ?
... is there any option besides these 2 ones ? ←
14:18:32 <AlexPassant> ... if not, can we decide between both ?
... if not, can we decide between both ? ←
14:18:41 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
14:19:21 <LeeF> ack SteveH
Lee Feigenbaum: ack SteveH ←
14:19:31 <pgearon> AndyS: not in my case, but it wouldn't be too hard to use that machinery instead
Andy Seaborne: not in my case, but it wouldn't be too hard to use that machinery instead [ Scribe Assist by Paula Gearon ] ←
14:20:08 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: +AxelPolleres ←
14:20:30 <AndyS> I find that it is useful
Andy Seaborne: I find that it is useful ←
14:20:47 <SteveH> where?
Steve Harris: where? ←
14:20:49 <kasei> I think it's quite useful
Gregory Williams: I think it's quite useful ←
14:21:16 <SteveH> what about the semantic conflict with COUNT(*)
Steve Harris: what about the semantic conflict with COUNT(*) ←
14:21:19 <bglimm> Are we discussing whther star is useful at all? Yes, but sound is quite bad�
Birte Glimm: Are we discussing whther star is useful at all? Yes, but sound is quite bad� ←
14:21:34 <kasei> 2
14:21:51 <SteveH> in 4store it's all
Steve Harris: in 4store it's all ←
14:21:56 <SteveH> 1) I think
Steve Harris: 1) I think ←
14:21:58 <AlexPassant> LeeF: any implementation doing * and aggregate ?
Lee Feigenbaum: any implementation doing * and aggregate ? ←
14:22:25 <kasei> I think it would be rather odd to design the language such that using * is guaranteed to produce an error in lots of queries.
Gregory Williams: I think it would be rather odd to design the language such that using * is guaranteed to produce an error in lots of queries. ←
14:22:28 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Axel Polleres: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:22:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm (muted), kasei (muted), MattPerry, AlexPassant, pgearon, SteveH, AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm (muted), kasei (muted), MattPerry, AlexPassant, pgearon, SteveH, AxelPolleres ←
14:22:44 <SteveH> kasei, well SQL works that way, it's never bothered me
Steve Harris: kasei, well SQL works that way, it's never bothered me ←
14:23:30 <AlexPassant> ... strawpoll
... strawpoll ←
14:23:35 <LeeF> straw poll: 1 "all", 2 "legal", 0 "don't really care too much"
Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll: 1 "all", 2 "legal", 0 "don't really care too much" ←
14:23:39 <bglimm> 1
Birte Glimm: 1 ←
14:23:39 <SteveH> 1
Steve Harris: 1 ←
14:23:40 <kasei> 2
14:23:42 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
14:23:43 <AndyS> 2
Andy Seaborne: 2 ←
14:23:44 <LeeF> 0
Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←
14:23:44 <MattPerry> 1
Matthew Perry: 1 ←
14:23:46 <pgearon> 0
Paula Gearon: 0 ←
14:23:46 <AlexPassant> 0
0 ←
14:23:47 <NicoM> 0
Nico Michaelis: 0 ←
14:23:48 <AxelPolleres> 2 (mildly)
Axel Polleres: 2 (mildly) ←
14:24:48 <AlexPassant> LeeF: which decision will be easier to change if we've done the wrong one
Lee Feigenbaum: which decision will be easier to change if we've done the wrong one ←
14:24:55 <AlexPassant> ... or if people implementing the other way
... or if people implementing the other way ←
14:25:01 <AlexPassant> ... any thoughts ?
... any thoughts ? ←
14:25:03 <NicoM> legal can be extended later :-9
Nico Michaelis: legal can be extended later :-9 ←
14:25:16 <SteveH> AndyS, I just meant the dramatically different meanings
Steve Harris: AndyS, I just meant the dramatically different meanings ←
14:25:34 <pgearon> 2 makes more sense to me if I were a user. 1 will be easier as an implementor. I can live with either
Paula Gearon: 2 makes more sense to me if I were a user. 1 will be easier as an implementor. I can live with either ←
14:25:45 <AxelPolleres> I would find different meaning of * in COUNT and SELECT weird... that's one point for 2
Axel Polleres: I would find different meaning of * in COUNT and SELECT weird... that's one point for 2 ←
14:25:48 <AxelPolleres> or no?
Axel Polleres: or no? ←
14:25:50 <AlexPassant> ... slight personal preference for 1
... slight personal preference for 1 ←
14:26:06 <SteveH> AxelPolleres, no, because then COUNT(*) and SLEECT(*) would bare no resemblance
Steve Harris: AxelPolleres, no, because then COUNT(*) and SLEECT(*) would bare no resemblance ←
14:26:19 <SteveH> er, SELECT *
Steve Harris: er, SELECT * ←
14:26:35 <AndyS> SteveH, are you proposing no SELECT * at all?
Andy Seaborne: SteveH, are you proposing no SELECT * at all? ←
14:26:39 <AlexPassant> ... if no new suggestion, tempted to say that we'll do 1
... if no new suggestion, tempted to say that we'll do 1 ←
14:26:44 <AlexPassant> ... but happy to hear additional suggestions
... but happy to hear additional suggestions ←
14:26:49 <SteveH> AndyS, no, just that it would mean all in-scope variables
Steve Harris: AndyS, no, just that it would mean all in-scope variables ←
14:27:04 <SteveH> no just the ones that can legally be used in scalar expressions
Steve Harris: no just the ones that can legally be used in scalar expressions ←
14:27:08 <SteveH> *not...
Steve Harris: *not... ←
14:27:46 <SteveH> I can write SELECT COUNT(?a) WHERE { ... } GROUP BY ?b, so ?a is in scopew
Steve Harris: I can write SELECT COUNT(?a) WHERE { ... } GROUP BY ?b, so ?a is in scopew ←
14:28:58 <SteveH> I can write SELECT (COUNT(?a) AS ?ca) WHERE { ... } GROUP BY ?b, so ?a is in scopew
Steve Harris: I can write SELECT (COUNT(?a) AS ?ca) WHERE { ... } GROUP BY ?b, so ?a is in scopew ←
14:29:02 <kasei> this is where the "potentially bound" terminology might have been slightly clearer than "in scope"
Gregory Williams: this is where the "potentially bound" terminology might have been slightly clearer than "in scope" ←
14:29:06 <MattPerry> what about: SELECT * WHERE { ... } GROUP BY (?a + ?b / 2)
Matthew Perry: what about: SELECT * WHERE { ... } GROUP BY (?a + ?b / 2) ←
14:29:15 <Zakim> + +34.92.38.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +34.92.38.aadd ←
14:29:41 <OlivierCorby> Zakim, aadd is me
Olivier Corby: Zakim, aadd is me ←
14:29:41 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +OlivierCorby; got it ←
14:29:52 <OlivierCorby> A little bit late ...
Olivier Corby: A little bit late ... ←
14:30:11 <AxelPolleres> matt, according to 1) that would be forbidden, yes?
Axel Polleres: matt, according to 1) that would be forbidden, yes? ←
14:30:23 <SteveH> AxelPolleres, no, it would just be an error
Steve Harris: AxelPolleres, no, it would just be an error ←
14:30:30 <AxelPolleres> according to 2) that would be like ASK?
Axel Polleres: according to 2) that would be like ASK? ←
14:30:57 <AlexPassant> AndyS: problem of semantic equivalence of the 2 expressions
Andy Seaborne: problem of semantic equivalence of the 2 expressions ←
14:31:06 <AxelPolleres> steveH, what's the diff between "an error" and "forbidden" for you here? ;-)
Axel Polleres: steveH, what's the diff between "an error" and "forbidden" for you here? ;-) ←
14:31:27 <AlexPassant> LeeF: anyone change his mind ?
Lee Feigenbaum: anyone change his mind ? ←
14:31:40 <SteveH> would consider objecting
Steve Harris: would consider objecting ←
14:31:50 <bglimm> I really prefer 1, but wouldn't formally object
Birte Glimm: I really prefer 1, but wouldn't formally object ←
14:31:51 <AlexPassant> ... anybody feels strongly about this and would raise objection ?
... anybody feels strongly about this and would raise objection ? ←
14:31:51 <kasei> I'm going to be very unhappy, but probably won't object.
Gregory Williams: I'm going to be very unhappy, but probably won't object. ←
14:32:05 <SteveH> I might be less upset if anyone had a real use?
Steve Harris: I might be less upset if anyone had a real use? ←
14:32:20 <SteveH> just seems like pointless syntax messing
Steve Harris: just seems like pointless syntax messing ←
14:32:25 <LeeF> No consensus.
Lee Feigenbaum: No consensus. ←
14:32:35 <kasei> SteveH, same as SELECT * in 1.0 -- it's a really useful shortcut.
Gregory Williams: SteveH, same as SELECT * in 1.0 -- it's a really useful shortcut. ←
14:32:54 <SteveH> kasei, but it's not useful in this case, it's just longhand for SELECT DISTINCT
Steve Harris: kasei, but it's not useful in this case, it's just longhand for SELECT DISTINCT ←
14:32:59 <pgearon> I'm happy with 1. As for using it to see what variables are in scope, then using 1 can give you errors to say what *isn't* in scope
Paula Gearon: I'm happy with 1. As for using it to see what variables are in scope, then using 1 can give you errors to say what *isn't* in scope ←
14:33:46 <LeeF> Given the lack of consensus, the chair decides towards option 1 based on potential objections and the chair's belief that option 1 leaves more options open in the future and leads to more interoperability if all implementations do not implement this the same way.
Lee Feigenbaum: Given the lack of consensus, the chair decides towards option 1 based on potential objections and the chair's belief that option 1 leaves more options open in the future and leads to more interoperability if all implementations do not implement this the same way. ←
14:33:47 <kasei> oh, I was under the impression that it could be combined with project exprs also...
Gregory Williams: oh, I was under the impression that it could be combined with project exprs also... ←
14:34:01 <SteveH> option 1 also gives us to possibility of MAX(*) etc. in the future
Steve Harris: option 1 also gives us to possibility of MAX(*) etc. in the future ←
14:34:06 <AndyS> I object.
Andy Seaborne: I object. ←
14:34:43 <AlexPassant> AndyS: is there any list of objections ?
Andy Seaborne: is there any list of objections ? ←
14:34:48 <AlexPassant> LeeF: no formal objections so far
Lee Feigenbaum: no formal objections so far ←
14:35:43 <LeeF> LeeF: Please mail any formal objections to the mailing list so that we have an official record and URI for them. Thanks.
Lee Feigenbaum: Please mail any formal objections to the mailing list so that we have an official record and URI for them. Thanks. [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:35:52 <AxelPolleres> We still have an open issue which is a bit related (that was the second place where we'd discussed about the definition of "inscope" or "potentially bound"... "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not already be potentially bound."
Axel Polleres: We still have an open issue which is a bit related (that was the second place where we'd discussed about the definition of "inscope" or "potentially bound"... "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not already be potentially bound." ←
14:36:10 <LeeF> topic: BIND and FILTER order execution
14:36:15 <AlexPassant> topic: BIND + FILTER
14:36:21 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0154.html
Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0154.html ←
14:36:33 <AxelPolleres> q+ to mention still open issue on prev. topic
Axel Polleres: q+ to mention still open issue on prev. topic ←
14:36:42 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←
14:36:42 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to mention still open issue on prev. topic
Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to mention still open issue on prev. topic ←
14:37:24 <AndyS> What is the issue number?
Andy Seaborne: What is the issue number? ←
14:38:43 <AxelPolleres> no issue number assigned yet, left open in disussion of last time... will ask again in the end whether we should open an issue.
Axel Polleres: no issue number assigned yet, left open in disussion of last time... will ask again in the end whether we should open an issue. ←
14:38:53 <LeeF> PREFIX : <http://example.org/>
Lee Feigenbaum: PREFIX : <http://example.org/> ←
14:38:53 <LeeF> SELECT ?s ?p ?o ?z
Lee Feigenbaum: SELECT ?s ?p ?o ?z ←
14:38:53 <LeeF> {
Lee Feigenbaum: { ←
14:38:53 <LeeF> ?s ?p ?o .
Lee Feigenbaum: ?s ?p ?o . ←
14:38:53 <LeeF> FILTER(?z = 3 )
Lee Feigenbaum: FILTER(?z = 3 ) ←
14:38:53 <LeeF> BIND(?o+1 AS ?z)
Lee Feigenbaum: BIND(?o+1 AS ?z) ←
14:38:55 <LeeF> }
Lee Feigenbaum: } ←
14:40:01 <AlexPassant> AndyS: implementaion acts differently
Andy Seaborne: implementaion acts differently ←
14:40:24 <AlexPassant> ... BIND does not have the semantics of LET
... BIND does not have the semantics of LET ←
14:40:34 <AlexPassant> ... so it will not act as a filter
... so it will not act as a filter ←
14:40:43 <AlexPassant> ... no error if you assign to an existing variable
... no error if you assign to an existing variable ←
14:41:51 <kasei> LeeF, do you preserve the lexical ordering amongst the BINDs when you "shove" them to the end of the BGP?
Gregory Williams: LeeF, do you preserve the lexical ordering amongst the BINDs when you "shove" them to the end of the BGP? ←
14:42:54 <kasei> q+
Gregory Williams: q+ ←
14:43:39 <pgearon> I have a mild preference for lexical ordering.
Paula Gearon: I have a mild preference for lexical ordering. ←
14:44:35 <LeeF> ack kasei
Lee Feigenbaum: ack kasei ←
14:44:37 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:44:37 <Zakim> kasei was not muted, kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei was not muted, kasei ←
14:45:03 <LeeF> kasei: lexical order is much more intuitive when reading a query
Gregory Williams: lexical order is much more intuitive when reading a query [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:45:12 <LeeF> kasei: but would filter floating mean that this is floating order?
Gregory Williams: but would filter floating mean that this is floating order? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:45:58 <AxelPolleres> { ?s ?p ?o . FILTER(?z = 3 )
Axel Polleres: { ?s ?p ?o . FILTER(?z = 3 ) ←
14:45:59 <AxelPolleres> BIND(?o+1 AS ?z)
Axel Polleres: BIND(?o+1 AS ?z) ←
14:45:59 <AxelPolleres> }
Axel Polleres: } ←
14:45:59 <AxelPolleres> shouldn't that mean the same as
Axel Polleres: shouldn't that mean the same as ←
14:45:59 <AxelPolleres> { { ?s ?p ?o . FILTER(?z = 3 ) }
Axel Polleres: { { ?s ?p ?o . FILTER(?z = 3 ) } ←
14:46:01 <AxelPolleres> BIND(?o+1 AS ?z)
Axel Polleres: BIND(?o+1 AS ?z) ←
14:46:02 <AxelPolleres> }
Axel Polleres: } ←
14:46:04 <AxelPolleres> ?
Axel Polleres: ? ←
14:46:22 <AlexPassant> LeeF: support from Axel, paul and greg that FILTER will fail in that case
Lee Feigenbaum: support from Axel, paul and greg that FILTER will fail in that case ←
14:46:22 <AxelPolleres> at least that's how I understood the earlier resolution
Axel Polleres: at least that's how I understood the earlier resolution ←
14:46:27 <AlexPassant> ... any different POV ?
... any different POV ? ←
14:47:23 <LeeF> Consensus around FILTERs and BINDs happening in lexical order a.k.a BIND is "just outside" a BGP, rather than at the end of it
Lee Feigenbaum: Consensus around FILTERs and BINDs happening in lexical order a.k.a BIND is "just outside" a BGP, rather than at the end of it ←
14:47:46 <LeeF> topic: + for fn:concat ?
14:47:58 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
14:47:58 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should now be muted ←
14:48:22 <SteveH> STRONG preference for not overloading
Steve Harris: STRONG preference for not overloading ←
14:48:40 <AlexPassant> LeeF: question about the + operator
Lee Feigenbaum: question about the + operator ←
14:48:44 <AlexPassant> ... overloaed for string operation
... overloaed for string operation ←
14:48:50 <AlexPassant> ... most reponses where against that
... most reponses where against that ←
14:49:04 <AlexPassant> ... but need for operator for string concatenation
... but need for operator for string concatenation ←
14:49:24 <MattPerry> How would that work for SELECT (?a + ?b) AS ?c WHERE ...
Matthew Perry: How would that work for SELECT (?a + ?b) AS ?c WHERE ... ←
14:49:47 <AlexPassant> AndyS: naturally wrote that in the query
Andy Seaborne: naturally wrote that in the query ←
14:49:51 <AndyS> ARQ implements -- it's a legal extension to expression evaluation anyway.
Andy Seaborne: ARQ implements -- it's a legal extension to expression evaluation anyway. ←
14:50:18 <kasei> I think "1" + "2" (plain literals) is going to produce unexpected results for people.
Gregory Williams: I think "1" + "2" (plain literals) is going to produce unexpected results for people. ←
14:50:47 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:51:16 <pgearon> +q
Paula Gearon: +q ←
14:51:29 <AlexPassant> LeeF: strawpoll for + in string concatenation
Lee Feigenbaum: strawpoll for + in string concatenation ←
14:51:37 <LeeF> straw poll: Using + operator for string concatenation
Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll: Using + operator for string concatenation ←
14:52:12 <LeeF> straw poll: Using + operator for string concatenation (no implicit casting)
Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll: Using + operator for string concatenation (no implicit casting) ←
14:52:17 <SteveH> -1
Steve Harris: -1 ←
14:52:20 <LeeF> +1 in favor / 0 don't care / -1 against
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 in favor / 0 don't care / -1 against ←
14:52:23 <kasei> -1
Gregory Williams: -1 ←
14:52:26 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
14:52:27 <LeeF> 0
Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←
14:52:27 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:52:29 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
14:52:30 <AxelPolleres> 0
Axel Polleres: 0 ←
14:52:31 <pgearon> +1
Paula Gearon: +1 ←
14:52:32 <NicoM> +1
Nico Michaelis: +1 ←
14:52:34 <AlexPassant> +1
+1 ←
14:52:35 <OlivierCorby> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
14:52:44 <AxelPolleres> meaning 0 + "str" wouldn't work, but "0"+" str" would ?
Axel Polleres: meaning 0 + "str" wouldn't work, but "0"+" str" would ? ←
14:52:52 <bglimm> 0
Birte Glimm: 0 ←
14:53:01 <LeeF> 5 / 3 / 3
Lee Feigenbaum: 5 / 3 / 3 ←
14:54:20 <SteveH> no xs:string?
Steve Harris: no xs:string? ←
14:54:37 <AxelPolleres> ... by example was meant just to clarify that no casting implicit
Axel Polleres: ... by example was meant just to clarify that no casting implicit ←
14:54:44 <AlexPassant> LeeF: preference to include this
Lee Feigenbaum: preference to include this ←
14:55:06 <AxelPolleres> ?x + "str" worries me a bit still
Axel Polleres: ?x + "str" worries me a bit still ←
14:55:39 <AxelPolleres> but str(?x) + str" would work "
Axel Polleres: but str(?x) + str" would work " ←
14:55:56 <AndyS> SteveH, Doing more than the spec requires (e.g. xs:string) is legal as an extension. Can add URI+string if you want :-)
Andy Seaborne: SteveH, Doing more than the spec requires (e.g. xs:string) is legal as an extension. Can add URI+string if you want :-) ←
14:56:10 <SteveH> AndyS, erg!
Steve Harris: AndyS, erg! ←
14:56:12 <LeeF> ACTION: AxelPolleres to come up with test cases around + for string concatenation
ACTION: AxelPolleres to come up with test cases around + for string concatenation ←
14:56:12 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - AxelPolleres
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - AxelPolleres ←
14:56:21 <LeeF> ACTION: Axel to come up with test cases around + for string concatenation
ACTION: Axel to come up with test cases around + for string concatenation ←
14:56:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Come up with test cases around + for string concatenation [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-11-09].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-330 - Come up with test cases around + for string concatenation [on Axel Polleres - due 2010-11-09]. ←
14:56:22 <AndyS> Why? namesapce + local name!
Andy Seaborne: Why? namesapce + local name! ←
14:56:29 <SteveH> the difference between plain literals and xsd:strings is already odd enough
Steve Harris: the difference between plain literals and xsd:strings is already odd enough ←
14:56:55 <pgearon> -q
Paula Gearon: -q ←
14:57:00 <AndyS> That is not a SPARQL matter - blame RDF-MT xsd1(a|b)
Andy Seaborne: That is not a SPARQL matter - blame RDF-MT xsd1(a|b) ←
14:58:04 <MattPerry> with comparison return type is always boolean
Matthew Perry: with comparison return type is always boolean ←
14:58:22 <SteveH> AndyS, sure, not SPARQL's fault, but we don't have to make it worse than it is
Steve Harris: AndyS, sure, not SPARQL's fault, but we don't have to make it worse than it is ←
14:58:29 <MattPerry> with overloaded + can be string or number
Matthew Perry: with overloaded + can be string or number ←
14:58:40 <LeeF> "1" * 4
Lee Feigenbaum: "1" * 4 ←
14:58:45 <LeeF> "aaaa" * 4
Lee Feigenbaum: "aaaa" * 4 ←
14:58:55 <AndyS> always the case of for ?x * ?y
Andy Seaborne: always the case of for ?x * ?y ←
14:59:46 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask about http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#selectExpressions ... "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not already be potentially bound." is still open, raise an ISSUE?
Axel Polleres: q+ to ask about http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#selectExpressions ... "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not already be potentially bound." is still open, raise an ISSUE? ←
15:00:22 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
15:00:45 <NickH> Zakim, ??P21 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??P21 is me ←
15:00:45 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NickH; got it ←
15:00:49 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:01:19 <LeeF> SteveH: fn:concat casts its arguments to a string, so we'll need to be careful
Steve Harris: fn:concat casts its arguments to a string, so we'll need to be careful [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
15:01:52 <SteveH> q-
Steve Harris: q- ←
15:02:21 <LeeF> ACTION: Andy to clarify the meaning of "potentially bound" vis a vis what can go on the right hand side of an AS in a SELECT list
ACTION: Andy to clarify the meaning of "potentially bound" vis a vis what can go on the right hand side of an AS in a SELECT list ←
15:02:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-331 - Clarify the meaning of "potentially bound" vis a vis what can go on the right hand side of an AS in a SELECT list [on Andy Seaborne - due 2010-11-09].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-331 - Clarify the meaning of "potentially bound" vis a vis what can go on the right hand side of an AS in a SELECT list [on Andy Seaborne - due 2010-11-09]. ←
15:02:24 <AxelPolleres> ack AxelPolleres
Axel Polleres: ack AxelPolleres ←
15:02:24 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#selectExpressions ... "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not
Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#selectExpressions ... "The new variable is introduced using the keyword AS; it must not ←
15:02:27 <Zakim> ... already be potentially bound." is still open, raise an ISSUE?
Zakim IRC Bot: ... already be potentially bound." is still open, raise an ISSUE? ←
15:02:46 <AlexPassant> topic: Aggregate over mixed datatypes
15:02:58 <AlexPassant> ... discuss next week, with status of test cases
... discuss next week, with status of test cases ←
15:03:30 <SteveH> bye all
Steve Harris: bye all ←
15:03:31 <ivan> zakim, drop me
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me ←
15:03:31 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan is being disconnected ←
15:03:32 <AxelPolleres> regrets for next week most likely... will probably collide with poster session at ISWC
Axel Polleres: regrets for next week most likely... will probably collide with poster session at ISWC ←
15:03:33 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
15:03:40 <bglimm> bye
Birte Glimm: bye ←
15:03:42 <Zakim> -AlexPassant
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexPassant ←
15:03:44 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
15:03:45 <MattPerry> bye
Matthew Perry: bye ←
15:03:49 <NickH> ARGH to timezones!
Nicholas Humfrey: ARGH to timezones! ←
15:03:53 <Zakim> -bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: -bglimm ←
15:04:02 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
Axel Polleres: rrsagent, make records public ←
15:04:11 <Zakim> -NicoM
Zakim IRC Bot: -NicoM ←
15:04:25 <NicoM> bye
Nico Michaelis: bye ←
15:04:33 <Zakim> -NickH
Zakim IRC Bot: -NickH ←
15:04:40 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: -OlivierCorby ←
15:06:06 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
15:10:49 <kasei> AndyS?
Gregory Williams: AndyS? ←
15:10:51 <Zakim> -pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgearon ←
15:10:53 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
15:10:53 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
15:10:55 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: -AxelPolleres ←
15:11:01 <Zakim> -kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: -kasei ←
15:11:03 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended ←
15:11:05 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.617.245.aaaa, LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm, +1.310.729.aabb, kasei, MattPerry, AlexPassant, pgearon, SteveH, AxelPolleres, +34.92.38.aadd, OlivierCorby, NickH
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.617.245.aaaa, LeeF, AndyS, Ivan, NicoM, bglimm, +1.310.729.aabb, kasei, MattPerry, AlexPassant, pgearon, SteveH, AxelPolleres, +34.92.38.aadd, OlivierCorby, NickH ←
15:11:07 <AndyS> kasei - just finished talking ... test case Q?
Andy Seaborne: kasei - just finished talking ... test case Q? ←
15:11:17 <kasei> bind04 - I think you wrote it?
Gregory Williams: bind04 - I think you wrote it? ←
15:11:25 <kasei> it has this:
Gregory Williams: it has this: ←
15:11:26 <kasei> { BIND(?o+1 AS ?z) } UNION { BIND(?o+2 AS ?z) }
Gregory Williams: { BIND(?o+1 AS ?z) } UNION { BIND(?o+2 AS ?z) } ←
15:11:44 <kasei> but has expected answers
Gregory Williams: but has expected answers ←
15:11:48 <kasei> and I can't sort out why
Gregory Williams: and I can't sort out why ←
15:12:38 <AndyS> :-)
Andy Seaborne: :-) ←
15:12:44 <AndyS> Bottom up we have:
Andy Seaborne: Bottom up we have: ←
15:13:17 <AndyS> Eval BIND(?o+1 AS ?z) (one table row) and Eval BIND(?o+2 AS ?z) as another table row from the UNION.
Andy Seaborne: Eval BIND(?o+1 AS ?z) (one table row) and Eval BIND(?o+2 AS ?z) as another table row from the UNION. ←
15:13:41 <kasei> right, but ?o isn't bound there is it? I expect zero results out of the union.
Gregory Williams: right, but ?o isn't bound there is it? I expect zero results out of the union. ←
15:13:43 <AndyS> Ah - OK - I see the Q now. Let me think a bit - looks wrong to me ...
Andy Seaborne: Ah - OK - I see the Q now. Let me think a bit - looks wrong to me ... ←
15:14:29 <kasei> I think it produces the expected answers if the triple pattern is distributed into the union.
Gregory Williams: I think it produces the expected answers if the triple pattern is distributed into the union. ←
15:15:05 <AndyS> Yes - looks like a bug to me.
Andy Seaborne: Yes - looks like a bug to me. ←
15:15:23 <kasei> ok. good to know i'm not going crazy.
Gregory Williams: ok. good to know i'm not going crazy. ←
15:15:35 <AndyS> One of the pain points of SPARQL is the need to duplicate patterns sometimes.
Andy Seaborne: One of the pain points of SPARQL is the need to duplicate patterns sometimes. ←
15:16:14 <kasei> yeah
Gregory Williams: yeah ←
15:17:38 <AndyS> LET ($$table := SELECT * { ?s ?p ?o } ) and have table variables.
Andy Seaborne: LET ($$table := SELECT * { ?s ?p ?o } ) and have table variables. ←
15:26:06 <kasei> hahaha
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Gregory Williams: hahaha ←
15:26:08 <kasei> oh god
Gregory Williams: oh god ←
15:26:33 <kasei> AndyS, if you're still around. I know selecting * in addition to projexps has been talked about, but do you recall if a decision was ever made?
Gregory Williams: AndyS, if you're still around. I know selecting * in addition to projexps has been talked about, but do you recall if a decision was ever made? ←
15:30:10 <AndyS> Formal DECISION? Don't think so.
Andy Seaborne: Formal DECISION? Don't think so. ←
15:30:26 <AndyS> I don't recall one anyway.
Andy Seaborne: I don't recall one anyway. ←
15:40:29 <kasei> ok
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Gregory Williams: ok ←
15:40:40 <AndyS> What is your opinion?
Andy Seaborne: What is your opinion? ←
15:40:50 <kasei> it occurred to me just a bit too late that that was the big reason I wanted SELECT * to work with the GROUP BY stuff.
Gregory Williams: it occurred to me just a bit too late that that was the big reason I wanted SELECT * to work with the GROUP BY stuff. ←
15:41:00 <kasei> I think it's useful
Gregory Williams: I think it's useful ←
15:42:28 <kasei> feel like SELECT * (?qty*?price AS ?total) is a valid thing to want to do.
Gregory Williams: feel like SELECT * (?qty*?price AS ?total) is a valid thing to want to do. ←
15:44:40 <AndyS> I agree - and if you don't like a feature, don't use it.
Andy Seaborne: I agree - and if you don't like a feature, don't use it. ←
15:45:35 <kasei> if we do support it, i fell as if that undermines Steve's point that SELECT * with GROUP BY is just shorthand for DISTINCT
Gregory Williams: if we do support it, i fell as if that undermines Steve's point that SELECT * with GROUP BY is just shorthand for DISTINCT ←
16:23:37 <SteveH> longhand for DISTINCT, it's more characters
(No events recorded for 38 minutes)
Steve Harris: longhand for DISTINCT, it's more characters ←
18:41:50 <kasei> SteveH, yes, fair enough.
(No events recorded for 138 minutes)
Gregory Williams: SteveH, yes, fair enough. ←
20:33:19 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-257
(No events recorded for 111 minutes)
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-257 ←
20:33:19 <trackbot> ACTION-257 Craft a test case for SELECT * ... GROUP BY and solicit implementor, WG, and community feedback closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-257 Craft a test case for SELECT * ... GROUP BY and solicit implementor, WG, and community feedback closed ←
20:33:26 <LeeF> (I suppose today obviates that to a large extent...)
Lee Feigenbaum: (I suppose today obviates that to a large extent...) ←
20:51:54 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-280
(No events recorded for 18 minutes)
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-280 ←
20:51:54 <trackbot> ACTION-280 Mark subquery tests 5-10 approved closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-280 Mark subquery tests 5-10 approved closed ←
21:07:01 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-317
(No events recorded for 15 minutes)
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-317 ←
21:07:01 <trackbot> ACTION-317 Review entailment closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-317 Review entailment closed ←
21:08:20 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-308
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-308 ←
21:08:20 <trackbot> ACTION-308 Mark group_concat and projexp tests as approved closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-308 Mark group_concat and projexp tests as approved closed ←
21:16:53 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-305
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-305 ←
21:16:53 <trackbot> ACTION-305 Start discussion on mailing list about set of functions to include in SPARQL closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-305 Start discussion on mailing list about set of functions to include in SPARQL closed ←
Formatted by CommonScribe