Meeting Record

Lee Feigenbaum: Next regular meeting: 2010-11-16 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (Scribe: Chime with NickH as backup) ←

Consensus emerging around text in doc : e.g. strict sum using op:numeric-add ←

Lee Feigenbaum: for next week: PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-16 by noting that aggregates define their semantics over mixed data types which can include errors, errors that propagate to a SELECT list result in an unbound variable, errors that propagate to GROUP BY clause result in an "unbound" key ←

Andy Seaborne: formal section will say that syntax -> algebra is 3 steps (instead of current 2) [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

Lee Feigenbaum: ... grouping works over multisets, solution modifiers work over sequences ←

ACTION: Lee to review the text that contributes to the proposed resolution of ISSUE-16 ←

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-332 - Review the text that contributes to the proposed resolution of ISSUE-16 [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2010-11-16]. ←

Paula Gearon: not clear from text what happens when an error is encountered midway through a SUM evaluation [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

Gregory Williams: I'm mildly opposed to the shortcuts. Same concerns as LeeF. ←

Souripriya Das: ADD => is the semantics like a MERGE? b/c we may have duplicates ←

Andy Seaborne: Usage experience - quickly started using them after adding them for remote admin of datasets. ←

Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll on proposed ADD/COPY/MOVE update shortcuts (+1/0/-1): ←

Lee Feigenbaum: I am motivated a bit by hearing positive implementation and usage experience from AndyS [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

15:28:17 <LeeF> topic: grouping by expressions

3. grouping by expressions

15:28:27 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0187.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0187.html ←

15:28:45 <LeeF> (btw, the last conversation dealt with ISSUE-59)

Lee Feigenbaum: (btw, the last conversation dealt with ISSUE-59) ←

15:29:22 <AndyS> (no issue for the issue of GROUP BY expression)

(no issue for the issue of GROUP BY expression) ←

15:29:45 <AndyS> LeeF summary/proposal possibilities: 0187

LeeF summary/proposal possibilities: 0187 ←

15:30:23 <AndyS> ... WG wanted to do in principle - mechanism postponed last time.

... WG wanted to do in principle - mechanism postponed last time. ←

15:31:00 <LeeF> option 1 - To project grouping expressions, use BIND to alias the expression to

Lee Feigenbaum: option 1 - To project grouping expressions, use BIND to alias the expression to ←

15:31:00 <LeeF> a variable and then GROUP BY and project that variable (as above).

Lee Feigenbaum: a variable and then GROUP BY and project that variable (as above). ←

15:31:25 <LeeF> option 2 - Include an AS aliasing mechanism in GROUP BY, allow that alias to be

Lee Feigenbaum: option 2 - Include an AS aliasing mechanism in GROUP BY, allow that alias to be ←

15:31:25 <LeeF> projected in the SELECT clause

Lee Feigenbaum: projected in the SELECT clause ←

15:32:34 <AndyS> Discussion around opt 2 and opt 1.

Discussion around opt 2 and opt 1. ←

15:32:49 <LeeF> q?

Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←

15:32:59 <AndyS> SteveH noted wish for if opt 2, then allow no AS form as well.

SteveH noted wish for if opt 2, then allow no AS form as well. ←

15:33:00 <Souri> q+

Souripriya Das: q+ ←

15:33:07 <LeeF> ack Souri

Lee Feigenbaum: ack Souri ←

15:33:48 <AndyS> Souri: Q about BIND and GROUP BY

Souripriya Das: Q about BIND and GROUP BY ←

15:33:55 <LeeF> SELECT ... ?x ... WHERE { .... BIND ( ?x AS expr ) } GROUP BY ?x

Lee Feigenbaum: SELECT ... ?x ... WHERE { .... BIND ( ?x AS expr ) } GROUP BY ?x ←

15:34:18 <kasei> that BIND is backwards, no?

Gregory Williams: that BIND is backwards, no? ←

15:34:25 <LeeF> SELECT ... ?x ... WHERE { .... } GROUP BY (expr AS ?x)

Lee Feigenbaum: SELECT ... ?x ... WHERE { .... } GROUP BY (expr AS ?x) ←

15:34:39 <LeeF> should have been BIND ( expr AS ?x )

Lee Feigenbaum: should have been BIND ( expr AS ?x ) ←

15:35:51 <AndyS> SELECT .... WHERE { .... } GROUP BY (expr AS ?x)

SELECT .... WHERE { .... } GROUP BY (expr AS ?x) ←

15:36:00 <AndyS> SELECT .... WHERE { .... } GROUP BY (expr)

SELECT .... WHERE { .... } GROUP BY (expr) ←

15:36:44 <LeeF> (general consensus against _requiring_ alias when grouping by expressions)

Lee Feigenbaum: (general consensus against _requiring_ alias when grouping by expressions) ←

15:36:59 <LeeF> straw poll: allow option 2 (include AS aliasing in GROUP BY syntax) (+1/0/-1)

Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll: allow option 2 (include AS aliasing in GROUP BY syntax) (+1/0/-1) ←

15:37:49 <LeeF> straw poll: allow option 2 (include expressions and AS aliasing in GROUP BY syntax) (+1/0/-1)

Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll: allow option 2 (include expressions and AS aliasing in GROUP BY syntax) (+1/0/-1) ←

15:37:58 <kasei> +1

Gregory Williams: +1 ←

15:38:00 <LeeF> 0

Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←

15:38:04 <AndyS> +1

+1 ←

15:38:13 <Souri> +1

Souripriya Das: +1 ←

15:38:20 <cbuilara> 0

Carlos Buil Aranda: 0 ←

15:38:25 <pgearon> 0

Paula Gearon: 0 ←

15:39:43 <LeeF> for next week: PROPOSED: The GROUP BY clause can include expressions with or without AS aliases. These aliases can be re-used in the HAVING clause and query result clause

Lee Feigenbaum: for next week: PROPOSED: The GROUP BY clause can include expressions with or without AS aliases. These aliases can be re-used in the HAVING clause and query result clause ←

15:39:46 <pgearon> I don't see the need for it when a BIND in the WHERE clause will work just as well. But I don't have a particular problem with it, so I voted 0 instead of -1

Paula Gearon: I don't see the need for it when a BIND in the WHERE clause will work just as well. But I don't have a particular problem with it, so I voted 0 instead of -1 ←

15:39:48 <AndyS> leeF: is teh ?x usable in HAVING?

Lee Feigenbaum: is teh ?x usable in HAVING? ←

15:39:51 <AndyS> AndyS; yes

AndyS; yes ←

15:40:00 <Souri> q+

Souripriya Das: q+ ←

15:40:10 <AndyS> Topic: Function library

4. Function library

15:40:29 <LeeF> ack souri

Lee Feigenbaum: ack souri ←

15:42:10 <AndyS> group - extend - having

group - extend - having ←

15:43:00 <AndyS> LeeF: will discuss in full group

Lee Feigenbaum: will discuss in full group ←

15:43:06 <pgearon> +q

Paula Gearon: +q ←

15:43:11 <LeeF> ack pgearon

Lee Feigenbaum: ack pgearon ←

15:45:39 <kasei> also, specifying an algorithm would prevent implementations from doing something better (like sourcing from random.org :)

Gregory Williams: also, specifying an algorithm would prevent implementations from doing something better (like sourcing from random.org :) ←

15:45:41 <pgearon> -q

Paula Gearon: -q ←

15:46:25 <pgearon> I'd prefer not to see a specified algorithm, but I wanted to raise it because it results in an untestable feature

Paula Gearon: I'd prefer not to see a specified algorithm, but I wanted to raise it because it results in an untestable feature ←

15:46:41 <AndyS> Topic: test cases

5. test cases

15:46:44 <kasei> I believe I'm passing all the non-entailment tests right now

Gregory Williams: I believe I'm passing all the non-entailment tests right now ←

15:47:00 <AndyS> LeeF: need to keep building test case materials

Lee Feigenbaum: need to keep building test case materials ←

15:47:09 <AndyS> ... but currently on track

... but currently on track ←

15:47:41 <AndyS> ADJOURNED

ADJOURNED ←

15:53:29 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended ←

15:53:31 <Zakim> Attendees were LeeF, Souri, pgearon, kasei, cbuilara, AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were LeeF, Souri, pgearon, kasei, cbuilara, AndyS ←

Formatted by CommonScribe

SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 09 November 2010

1. Admin

2. update shortcuts

3. grouping by expressions

4. Function library

5. test cases