14:57:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/12/21-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/12/21-sparql-irc ←
14:57:52 <LeeF> RRSAgent, make logs world
Lee Feigenbaum: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:57:56 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, this will be SPARQL ←
14:57:56 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes ←
14:58:06 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
14:58:08 <LeeF> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Weekly Teleconference
14:58:10 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:58:10 <LeeF> regrets: Alex
14:58:12 <LeeF> Scribe: Axel
(Scribe set to Axel Polleres)
14:58:14 <Zakim> + +44.208.439.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.208.439.aaaa ←
14:58:19 <LeeF> Scribenick: AxelPolleres
14:58:21 <SteveH_> Zakim, aaaa is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, aaaa is me ←
14:58:21 <Zakim> +SteveH_; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH_; got it ←
14:58:28 <LeeF> Date: 2010-12-20
14:58:45 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
14:58:48 <LeeF> hmm
Lee Feigenbaum: hmm ←
14:58:49 <LeeF> that's not the date
Lee Feigenbaum: that's not the date ←
14:58:51 <LeeF> Date: 2010-12-21
14:58:54 <LeeF> Agenda: Agenda:
14:58:55 <cbuilara> zakim, ??P3 is me
Carlos Buil Aranda: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
14:58:55 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cbuilara; got it ←
14:59:00 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2010-12-21
14:59:06 <SteveH_> cbuilara, you have mic problems
Steve Harris: cbuilara, you have mic problems ←
14:59:20 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
14:59:23 <cbuilara> ok I will solve them, just a sec
Carlos Buil Aranda: ok I will solve them, just a sec ←
14:59:24 <LeeF> zakim, code?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, code? ←
14:59:24 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), LeeF
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), LeeF ←
14:59:29 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P4 is me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, ??P4 is me ←
14:59:29 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm; got it ←
14:59:31 <Zakim> + +1.310.729.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.310.729.aabb ←
14:59:38 <kasei> Zakim, aabb is me
Gregory Williams: Zakim, aabb is me ←
14:59:38 <Zakim> +kasei; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei; got it ←
14:59:50 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
14:59:54 <SteveH> Zakim, SteveH_ is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, SteveH_ is me ←
14:59:54 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
15:00:05 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.553.aacc ←
15:00:08 <LeeF> zakim, aacc is me
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, aacc is me ←
15:00:08 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF; got it ←
15:00:21 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
15:00:21 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
15:00:22 <bijan> Having some trouble dialing in
Bijan Parsia: Having some trouble dialing in ←
15:00:24 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:00:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveH, cbuilara, bglimm (muted), kasei, Sandro, LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveH, cbuilara, bglimm (muted), kasei, Sandro, LeeF ←
15:00:27 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: +AxelPolleres ←
15:00:32 <LeeF> bijan, which # are you trying?
Lee Feigenbaum: bijan, which # are you trying? ←
15:00:39 <bijan> It's on my end :)
Bijan Parsia: It's on my end :) ←
15:00:41 <bijan> But cambridge
Bijan Parsia: But cambridge ←
15:00:43 <AndyS> zakim is not getting to the second part of the message.
Andy Seaborne: zakim is not getting to the second part of the message. ←
15:00:49 <chimezie> Zakim, what is the pass code?
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, what is the pass code? ←
15:00:51 <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 ←
15:00:59 <bglimm> Bijan, UK is mostly not working, I usually try France
Birte Glimm: Bijan, UK is mostly not working, I usually try France ←
15:01:03 <bijan> Workign on it
Bijan Parsia: Workign on it ←
15:01:05 <bglimm> +33.4.26.46.79.03
Birte Glimm: +33.4.26.46.79.03 ←
15:01:06 <bijan> I'm in the states
Bijan Parsia: I'm in the states ←
15:01:10 <SteveH> I got in on the london number ok
Steve Harris: I got in on the london number ok ←
15:01:11 <bglimm> Ah, ok
Birte Glimm: Ah, ok ←
15:01:14 <bijan> Hence not with my normal setup
Bijan Parsia: Hence not with my normal setup ←
15:01:20 <Zakim> +??P12
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12 ←
15:01:26 <AndyS> zakim, ??P12 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P12 is me ←
15:01:26 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:01:32 <Zakim> +Chimezie_Ogbuji
Zakim IRC Bot: +Chimezie_Ogbuji ←
15:01:36 <AxelPolleres> Lee, as mentioned, I can srcibe (alex regrets...)
Lee, as mentioned, I can srcibe (alex regrets...) ←
15:01:39 <AxelPolleres> ok?
ok? ←
15:01:41 <LeeF> zakim, who's speaking?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's speaking? ←
15:01:50 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, yes, thanks - i already set you up as scribe with zakim/rrsagent
Lee Feigenbaum: AxelPolleres, yes, thanks - i already set you up as scribe with zakim/rrsagent ←
15:01:52 <Zakim> LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AxelPolleres (11%), LeeF (31%), AndyS (57%), Chimezie_Ogbuji (5%)
Zakim IRC Bot: LeeF, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AxelPolleres (11%), LeeF (31%), AndyS (57%), Chimezie_Ogbuji (5%) ←
15:01:54 <AxelPolleres> scribe: AxelPolleres
15:02:06 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
15:02:12 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, mute me ←
15:02:12 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted ←
15:02:22 <MattPerry> zakim, P14 is me
Matthew Perry: zakim, P14 is me ←
15:02:22 <Zakim> sorry, MattPerry, I do not recognize a party named 'P14'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, MattPerry, I do not recognize a party named 'P14' ←
15:02:27 <LeeF> zakim, ??P14 is MattPerry
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, ??P14 is MattPerry ←
15:02:27 <Zakim> +MattPerry; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry; got it ←
15:02:51 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:02:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveH, cbuilara, bglimm (muted), kasei, Sandro, LeeF, AxelPolleres, AndyS, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveH, cbuilara, bglimm (muted), kasei, Sandro, LeeF, AxelPolleres, AndyS, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), MattPerry ←
15:02:56 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
15:03:01 <bijan> zakim, ??p15 is me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, ??p15 is me ←
15:03:01 <Zakim> +bijan; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bijan; got it ←
15:03:07 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
15:03:07 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
15:03:27 <AxelPolleres> topic: admin
15:03:28 <LeeF> topic: Admin
15:03:33 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-07
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-07 ←
15:03:39 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-14
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-14 ←
15:03:46 <AxelPolleres> Lee: let's approve old minutes...
Lee Feigenbaum: let's approve old minutes... ←
15:03:53 <Zakim> + +1.540.841.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.841.aadd ←
15:04:24 <AndyS> +1 to minutes
Andy Seaborne: +1 to minutes ←
15:04:28 <LeeF> zakim, aadd is pgearon
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, aadd is pgearon ←
15:04:28 <Zakim> +pgearon; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon; got it ←
15:04:38 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-07
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-07 ←
15:04:43 <LeeF> resolved: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-14
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-14 ←
15:04:48 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-14
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-12-14 ←
15:04:58 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-01-05 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Olivier? AndyS?)
Lee Feigenbaum: Next regular meeting: 2011-01-05 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Olivier? AndyS?) ←
15:05:19 <SteveH> Jan 4th?
Steve Harris: Jan 4th? ←
15:05:38 <AxelPolleres> Leef: next meeting will be Jan 4th ,no meeting next week, enjoy your holidays
Lee Feigenbaum: next meeting will be Jan 4th ,no meeting next week, enjoy your holidays ←
15:05:44 <LeeF> Next regular meeting: 2011-01-04 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Olivier? AndyS?)
Lee Feigenbaum: Next regular meeting: 2011-01-04 @ 15:00 UK / 10:00 EST (scribe: Olivier? AndyS?) ←
15:05:52 <LeeF> topic: Last Call
15:06:22 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call ←
15:06:27 <AxelPolleres> Lee: last call will be "standing topic" for the following TCs
Lee Feigenbaum: last call will be "standing topic" for the following TCs ←
15:06:59 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
15:07:00 <AxelPolleres> .... wiki page has for each doc WG decisions needed and open issues,
.... wiki page has for each doc WG decisions needed and open issues, ←
15:07:22 <AxelPolleres> ... as well as editorial tasks
... as well as editorial tasks ←
15:07:34 <Zakim> +SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH ←
15:07:53 <AxelPolleres> ... please all editors, complete that wiki page, would be extremly helpful
... please all editors, complete that wiki page, would be extremly helpful ←
15:08:04 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
15:08:13 <AxelPolleres> ... also volunteering for review can be done on that wiki page
... also volunteering for review can be done on that wiki page ←
15:08:18 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
15:08:50 <AxelPolleres> ... all editors, if you believe your doc is ready for LC, record that as well
... all editors, if you believe your doc is ready for LC, record that as well ←
15:09:01 <Zakim> +SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH ←
15:09:36 <AndyS> No test doc?
Andy Seaborne: No test doc? ←
15:09:58 <AxelPolleres> ... all WG members, feel free to add yourselves volunteering for a comprehensive review
... all WG members, feel free to add yourselves volunteering for a comprehensive review ←
15:10:30 <AxelPolleres> Lee: testdoc not yet critical for LC, let's focus on that as we have those ready
Lee Feigenbaum: testdoc not yet critical for LC, let's focus on that as we have those nine docs ready ←
15:10:50 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
15:10:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see cbuilara, bglimm (muted), kasei, Sandro, LeeF, AxelPolleres, AndyS, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), MattPerry, bijan (muted), pgearon, ??P2, SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see cbuilara, bglimm (muted), kasei, Sandro, LeeF, AxelPolleres, AndyS, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), MattPerry, bijan (muted), pgearon, ??P2, SteveH ←
15:10:52 <AxelPolleres> s/those/those nine docs/
15:10:57 <LeeF> zakim, ??P2 is EFranconi
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, ??P2 is EFranconi ←
15:10:57 <Zakim> +EFranconi; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +EFranconi; got it ←
15:11:30 <AndyS> I'm a bit worried about having too few tests (not the test doc) - tests test the spec and check we have done the details. Already finding small issues with functions.
Andy Seaborne: I'm a bit worried about having too few tests (not the test doc) - tests test the spec and check we have done the details. Already finding small issues with functions. ←
15:11:53 <AxelPolleres> Lee: two main topics today... enrico's proposal for new OWL entailment regime, and open issues on SPARQL uniform HTTP Protocol, we'll try to limit each one to 25min.
Lee Feigenbaum: two main topics today... enrico's proposal for new OWL entailment regime, and open issues on SPARQL uniform HTTP Protocol, we'll try to limit each one to 25min. ←
15:12:00 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS
Steve Harris: +1 to AndyS ←
15:12:37 <AxelPolleres> ... would like to focus on conrete querstions rather than rehashing discussions carried out on the list already.
... would like to focus on conrete querstions rather than rehashing discussions carried out on the list already. ←
15:12:45 <AndyS> Topic: OWL Direct entailment regime with non-distinguished variables
15:12:59 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
15:13:14 <AxelPolleres> enrico: propose to add entailment regime that differs from current OWL DS proposal.
Enrico Franconi: propose to add entailment regime that differs from current OWL DS proposal. ←
15:13:27 <Zakim> +??P22
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22 ←
15:13:29 <LeeF> (AndyS, I share the concern. Not sure how to clone our WG resources. :/)
Lee Feigenbaum: (AndyS, I share the concern. Not sure how to clone our WG resources. :/) ←
15:13:33 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P22 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P22 is me ←
15:13:33 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
15:14:32 <AxelPolleres> .... would change that bnodes would not be in the answer set (birte said that this is not maintaining lower entailment regimes results), and allow non-distinguished variables.
.... would change that bnodes would not be in the answer set (birte said that this is not maintaining lower entailment regimes results), and allow non-distinguished variables. ←
15:15:03 <AxelPolleres> ... negative remark I got was that two deviating ent regimes might be confusing (bijan).
... negative remark I got was that two deviating ent regimes might be confusing (bijan). ←
15:15:51 <AxelPolleres> ... why I still want to have it: is that this would fit the needs of people doing 20 years of DB+ontologies research, and allow a richer way to query ontologies.
... why I still want to have it: is that this would fit the needs of people doing 20 years of DB+ontologies research, and allow a richer way to query ontologies. ←
15:16:16 <AxelPolleres> ... without this extension SPARQL becomes useless for OWL-QL.
... without this extension SPARQL becomes useless for OWL-QL. ←
15:16:50 <AxelPolleres> ... for applications that don't necesarily all exist now, but I see huge potential for DB+ontologies.
... for applications that don't necesarily all exist now, but I see huge potential for DB+ontologies. ←
15:16:59 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
15:16:59 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
15:17:09 <bglimm> I cant really say much, my cold made me loose my voice
Birte Glimm: I cant really say much, my cold made me loose my voice ←
15:17:12 <AxelPolleres> Lee: bijan/birte wanna express your concerns?
Lee Feigenbaum: bijan/birte wanna express your concerns? ←
15:17:30 <AxelPolleres> bijan: not just confusing to have more than once, but other concerns.
Bijan Parsia: not just confusing to have more than once, but other concerns. ←
15:18:34 <AxelPolleres> ... we have already confusion with OWL profiles explaining our users. We try to make that work for our users to query SW data, DB scenario is also important
... we have already confusion with OWL profiles explaining our users. We try to make that work for our users to query SW data, DB scenario is also important ←
15:18:48 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
15:18:48 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
15:18:51 <AxelPolleres> ... but we don't want to deviate on RDF data from other ent regimes.
... but we don't want to deviate on RDF data from other ent regimes. ←
15:19:03 <AxelPolleres> q+
q+ ←
15:19:08 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←
15:19:33 <LeeF> AxelPolleres: We should discuss the two points separately - bnodes in answers, and non-distinguished variables
Axel Polleres: We should discuss the two points separately - bnodes in answers, and non-distinguished variables [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
15:19:38 <bijan> Let me add that non-distinguished variables complicate the implementation even in the polynomial fragments.
Bijan Parsia: Let me add that non-distinguished variables complicate the implementation even in the polynomial fragments. ←
15:20:08 <EFranconi> q+
Enrico Franconi: q+ ←
15:20:18 <sandro> q+ to ask about who will do the writing and produce test cases and when
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about who will do the writing and produce test cases and when ←
15:20:20 <LeeF> ack EFranconi
Lee Feigenbaum: ack EFranconi ←
15:20:56 <AxelPolleres> Axel: there might be cases for bnodes allowed, but also non-distinguished variables.
Axel Polleres: there might be cases for bnodes allowed, but also non-distinguished variables. ←
15:21:29 <AxelPolleres> Enrico: disagrees... if nondist-variables, we shouldn't have bnodes in answers, both issues go together.
Enrico Franconi: disagrees... if nondist-variables, we shouldn't have bnodes in answers, both issues go together. ←
15:21:29 <LeeF> ack sandro
Lee Feigenbaum: ack sandro ←
15:21:29 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about who will do the writing and produce test cases and when
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask about who will do the writing and produce test cases and when ←
15:21:55 <AxelPolleres> sandro: does enrico volunteer to do the editing work?
Sandro Hawke: does enrico volunteer to do the editing work? ←
15:22:22 <AxelPolleres> enrico: can be done, don't know about the details, that's a minor point.
Enrico Franconi: can be done, don't know about the details, that's a minor point. ←
15:22:38 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
15:22:40 <AxelPolleres> lee: given our existing schedule and resources, that's a challenge
Lee Feigenbaum: given our existing schedule and resources, that's a challenge ←
15:22:46 <bglimm> Well, there have to be implementations and test cases, which is more work then actually just adding another regime to the spec
Birte Glimm: Well, there have to be implementations and test cases, which is more work then actually just adding another regime to the spec ←
15:22:58 <SteveH> doesn't the point about returning "existential variables" apply equally to vanilla SPARQL?
Steve Harris: doesn't the point about returning "existential variables" apply equally to vanilla SPARQL? ←
15:23:18 <AxelPolleres> ... another point is whether we would've implementations, enrico put a few implementers in touch with us on the list.
... another point is whether we would've implementations, enrico put a few implementers in touch with us on the list. ←
15:24:01 <AxelPolleres> ... one potential option would be to add it under the "at risk" label.
... one potential option would be to add it under the "at risk" label. ←
15:24:21 <bijan> Two independent implementations
Bijan Parsia: Two independent implementations ←
15:24:28 <AxelPolleres> enrico: we'd need an implementation which complies to the standard, right?
Enrico Franconi: we'd need an implementation which complies to the standard, right? ←
15:24:36 <AxelPolleres> lee: we need two
Lee Feigenbaum: we need two ←
15:24:58 <AxelPolleres> enrico: quonto, a system from pisa, clark&parsia, ...
Enrico Franconi: quonto, a system from pisa, clark&parsia, ... ←
15:25:30 <AxelPolleres> ... that to nd-variables, none of them planned to be compliant with sparql (mostly because there was no such entailment regime)
... that to nd-variables, none of them planned to be compliant with sparql (mostly because there was no such entailment regime) ←
15:26:12 <AxelPolleres> ... wrappers around existing systems should be possible/opportunity
... wrappers around existing systems should be possible/opportunity ←
15:26:54 <AxelPolleres> ... but probably not gonna happen within the next 4 months.
... but probably not gonna happen within the next 4 months. ←
15:27:14 <EFranconi> q+
Enrico Franconi: q+ ←
15:27:20 <LeeF> ack EFranconi
Lee Feigenbaum: ack EFranconi ←
15:27:34 <AxelPolleres> lee: ??? (didn't catch that)
Lee Feigenbaum: ??? (didn't catch that) ←
15:28:03 <AxelPolleres> enrico: market hasn't pushed so far, since they weren't aware
Enrico Franconi: market hasn't pushed so far, since they weren't aware ←
15:28:35 <AxelPolleres> lee: then not clerar to me whether they have a reason to move to sparql or whether happy with current conjunctive queries they have
Lee Feigenbaum: then not clerar to me whether they have a reason to move to sparql or whether happy with current conjunctive queries they have ←
15:28:38 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
15:28:50 <bijan> q+
Bijan Parsia: q+ ←
15:28:53 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:28:54 <bijan> zakim, unmute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, unmute me ←
15:28:54 <Zakim> bijan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should no longer be muted ←
15:28:56 <LeeF> ack bijan
Lee Feigenbaum: ack bijan ←
15:28:56 <AxelPolleres> enrico: just a matter of (standard?) syntax
Enrico Franconi: just a matter of (standard?) syntax ←
15:29:43 <AxelPolleres> bijan: one thing that came out is that a lot of use case for that is analysis rather than end user queries
Bijan Parsia: one thing that came out is that a lot of use case for that is analysis rather than end user queries ←
15:30:38 <bijan> zakim, mute me
Bijan Parsia: zakim, mute me ←
15:30:38 <Zakim> bijan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bijan should now be muted ←
15:30:38 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
15:30:40 <LeeF> ack SteveH
Lee Feigenbaum: ack SteveH ←
15:31:43 <AxelPolleres> steve: there are already situations where implementations can't handle all of the syntax of SPARQL (quad stores vs. triple stores, e.g.)
Steve Harris: there are already situations where implementations can't handle all of the syntax of SPARQL (quad stores vs. triple stores, e.g.) ←
15:32:09 <EFranconi> Q+
Enrico Franconi: Q+ ←
15:32:20 <AxelPolleres> sandro: wonder if the market will end up misusing the existing SPARQL/OWL ent regime, if we don't cater for them
Sandro Hawke: wonder if the market will end up misusing the existing SPARQL/OWL ent regime, if we don't cater for them ←
15:32:22 <LeeF> ack EFranconi
Lee Feigenbaum: ack EFranconi ←
15:33:05 <AxelPolleres> enrico: I think this will happen, some implementers already say "we want SPARQL syntax/protocol"
Enrico Franconi: I think this will happen, some implementers already say "we want SPARQL syntax/protocol" ←
15:33:45 <Zakim> -kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: -kasei ←
15:34:05 <Zakim> +kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei ←
15:34:08 <AndyS> misusing? experimenting with future possibilities?
Andy Seaborne: misusing? experimenting with future possibilities? ←
15:34:21 <SteveH> returning an error under certain circumstances would be complaint
Steve Harris: returning an error under certain circumstances would be complaint ←
15:34:22 <AxelPolleres> sandro: you say that this group would make a parallel standard, but not "claim" they are compliant to the spec.
Sandro Hawke: you say that this group would make a parallel standard, but not "claim" they are compliant to the spec. ←
15:34:23 <bijan> I.e.,entailment regimes are an extension point
Bijan Parsia: I.e.,entailment regimes are an extension point ←
15:34:30 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
15:34:49 <AxelPolleres> lee: I see three options.
Lee Feigenbaum: I see three options. ←
15:36:10 <AxelPolleres> .... 1) we don't have enough consensus to cater for this in this round, we hope that this group of implementers will go ahead and specify their ent regime and can be added in next standardisation role (clearly the least satisfying to enrico, and could slow adoption in some market, but leat impact to our schedule)
.... 1) we don't have enough consensus to cater for this in this round, we hope that this group of implementers will go ahead and specify their ent regime and can be added in next standardisation role (clearly the least satisfying to enrico, and could slow adoption in some market, but leat impact to our schedule) ←
15:36:17 <AxelPolleres> 2) include the regime
2) include the regime ←
15:36:30 <AxelPolleres> 3) include the regime "at risk"
3) include the regime "at risk" ←
15:36:50 <AxelPolleres> both 2)+3) would require text and test cases
both 2)+3) would require text and test cases ←
15:37:15 <AxelPolleres> .... would like to go for strawpoll.
.... would like to go for strawpoll. ←
15:37:27 <bijan> +1 to sandro; at risk is the default to help the schedule
Bijan Parsia: +1 to sandro; at risk is the default to help the schedule ←
15:37:29 <AxelPolleres> sandro: I would want to make it at risk anyways, if we do it
Sandro Hawke: I would want to make it at risk anyways, if we do it ←
15:37:37 <AxelPolleres> lee: ok let's drop 2)
Lee Feigenbaum: ok let's drop 2) ←
15:37:44 <bijan> Those seem like the options :)
Bijan Parsia: Those seem like the options :) ←
15:37:54 <AxelPolleres> ... any more comments?
... any more comments? ←
15:38:37 <AndyS> Would current ent regime for OWL2-DS name need to change?
Andy Seaborne: Would current ent regime for OWL2-DS name need to change? ←
15:38:50 <AxelPolleres> enrico: in sparql1.0 it was anyways legal to add new ent. regimes
Enrico Franconi: in sparql1.0 it was anyways legal to add new ent. regimes ←
15:38:56 <bijan> AndyS: No
Andy Seaborne: No [ Scribe Assist by Bijan Parsia ] ←
15:38:57 <AxelPolleres> lee: this is still the case
Lee Feigenbaum: this is still the case ←
15:39:05 <bglimm> We don't say that the specified regimes are the only ones forever after
Birte Glimm: We don't say that the specified regimes are the only ones forever after ←
15:39:10 <bijan> +1 to Lee; Entailment regime are an extension point
Bijan Parsia: +1 to Lee; Entailment regime are an extension point ←
15:39:40 <AxelPolleres> sandro: we're definitly open to more ent. regimes in the future
Sandro Hawke: we're definitly open to more ent. regimes in the future ←
15:39:55 <AxelPolleres> (enrico can you type in what you just said)
(enrico can you type in what you just said) ←
15:40:01 <AndyS> Leaving a postponed issue is the way to do that
Andy Seaborne: Leaving a postponed issue is the way to do that ←
15:40:32 <EFranconi> I'D LIKE TO HAVE A STATEMENT SOMEWHERE THAT THE ENT-REG I'M PROPOSING IS DESIRABLE IF WORKED OUT BETTER WITH MORE RESOURCES
Enrico Franconi: I'D LIKE TO HAVE A STATEMENT SOMEWHERE THAT THE ENT-REG I'M PROPOSING IS DESIRABLE IF WORKED OUT BETTER WITH MORE RESOURCES ←
15:40:32 <AxelPolleres> lee: strawpoll...
Lee Feigenbaum: strawpoll... ←
15:40:40 <chimezie> Yes, if we choose 1, we probably should mark it as a postponed issue
Chimezie Ogbuji: Yes, if we choose 1, we probably should mark it as a postponed issue ←
15:40:45 <LeeF> straw poll: (1) leave regimes as-is / (2) include regime with non-distinguished variables
Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll: (1) leave regimes as-is / (2) include regime with non-distinguished variables ←
15:41:07 <SteveH> 1, with a postponed issue
Steve Harris: 1, with a postponed issue ←
15:41:09 <bglimm> 1
Birte Glimm: 1 ←
15:41:10 <kasei> 0
15:41:11 <cbuilara> 0
15:41:13 <bijan> 1
Bijan Parsia: 1 ←
15:41:14 <LeeF> 0
Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←
15:41:15 <sandro> 2, but not a strong preference
Sandro Hawke: 2, but not a strong preference ←
15:41:17 <AndyS> 0
Andy Seaborne: 0 ←
15:41:17 <chimezie> 1, with postponed issue
Chimezie Ogbuji: 1, with postponed issue ←
15:41:18 <EFranconi> 2
Enrico Franconi: 2 ←
15:41:19 <MattPerry> 0
Matthew Perry: 0 ←
15:41:25 <pgearon> 0
Paula Gearon: 0 ←
15:41:33 <AxelPolleres> 2 only if we have someone committing to edit/spec it, 1 otherwise
2 only if we have someone committing to edit/spec it, 1 otherwise ←
15:42:13 <AxelPolleres> (count me as a 0)
(count me as a 0) ←
15:42:53 <AxelPolleres> lee: I'll set up an issue for this...
Lee Feigenbaum: I'll set up an issue for this... ←
15:43:19 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-64 with no change for now, and include ISSUE-64 on a list of postponed issues for a future WG to consider
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-64 with no change for now, and include ISSUE-64 on a list of postponed issues for a future WG to consider ←
15:44:06 <Zakim> -bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: -bglimm ←
15:45:07 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:45:07 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted ←
15:45:08 <bijan> Seconded
Bijan Parsia: Seconded ←
15:45:53 <AxelPolleres> seconded, so
seconded, so ←
15:45:54 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
15:45:57 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, mute me ←
15:45:57 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should now be muted ←
15:46:07 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
15:46:07 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm; got it ←
15:46:11 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-64 with no change for now, and include ISSUE-64 on a list of postponed issues for a future WG to consider
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-64 with no change for now, and include ISSUE-64 on a list of postponed issues for a future WG to consider ←
15:46:19 <bglimm> Sorry, my line dropped
Birte Glimm: Sorry, my line dropped ←
15:46:50 <LeeF> ISSUE-64: Closed with no action as of now, but postponed for consideration by a future WG
Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-64: Closed with no action as of now, but postponed for consideration by a future WG ←
15:47:32 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to close ISSUE-64 and place ISSUE-64 on a list of postponed issues
ACTION: Lee to close ISSUE-64 and place ISSUE-64 on a list of postponed issues ←
15:48:07 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:48:07 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted ←
15:48:28 <AxelPolleres> lee: trackbot gone, need to add issues/actions manually after call
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot gone, need to add issues/actions manually after call ←
15:48:37 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES#ISSUE-56:_Does_HTTP_PATCH_affect_either_the_SPARQL_Protocol_or_the_SPARQL_Uniform_etc._HTTP_etc._Protocol.3F
Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-56:_Does_HTTP_PATCH_affect_either_the_SPARQL_Protocol_or_the_SPARQL_Uniform_etc._HTTP_etc._Protocol.3F">http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES#ISSUE-56:_Does_HTTP_PATCH_affect_either_the_SPARQL_Protocol_or_the_SPARQL_Uniform_etc._HTTP_etc._Protocol.3F ←
15:48:44 <AxelPolleres> topic: http udate protocol issues
15:49:00 <AxelPolleres> lee: first one ISSUE-56
Lee Feigenbaum: first one ISSUE-56 ←
15:49:22 <Zakim> -bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: -bglimm ←
15:49:42 <AxelPolleres> .... question whether somthing about PATCH needs to be said in http-rdf-update
.... question whether somthing about PATCH needs to be said in http-rdf-update ←
15:50:32 <AxelPolleres> chime: we had 2 comments about this, as a result about that thread, my suggestion was to keep PATCH not normative but add some more words about it
Chimezie Ogbuji: we had 2 comments about this, as a result about that thread, my suggestion was to keep PATCH not normative but add some more words about it ←
15:50:57 <chimezie> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0465.html
Chimezie Ogbuji: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010OctDec/0465.html ←
15:51:17 <AxelPolleres> ... most recent comment from andy, see url just pasted.
... most recent comment from andy, see url just pasted. ←
15:51:27 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#http-patch
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#http-patch ←
15:51:36 <AxelPolleres> lee: current version reflects your proposal?
Lee Feigenbaum: current version reflects your proposal? ←
15:51:40 <AxelPolleres> chime: yes
Chimezie Ogbuji: yes ←
15:52:00 <Zakim> -bijan
Zakim IRC Bot: -bijan ←
15:52:46 <AxelPolleres> ... I am happy with that informative note.
... I am happy with that informative note. ←
15:52:53 <AxelPolleres> ... anyone objects?
... anyone objects? ←
15:53:36 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 with the inclusion of non-normative only text addressing how PATCH should be used with the Uniform HTTP Protocol
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 with the inclusion of non-normative only text addressing how PATCH should be used with the Uniform HTTP Protocol ←
15:53:52 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 with the inclusion of the existing non-normative only text addressing how PATCH should be used with the Uniform HTTP Protocol
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56 with the inclusion of the existing non-normative only text addressing how PATCH should be used with the Uniform HTTP Protocol ←
15:54:17 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56 with the inclusion of the existing non-normative only text addressing how PATCH should be used with the Uniform HTTP Protocol
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56 with the inclusion of the existing non-normative only text addressing how PATCH should be used with the Uniform HTTP Protocol ←
15:54:23 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to close ISSUE-56
ACTION: Lee to close ISSUE-56 ←
15:54:58 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES#.28No_formal_issue.29:_Confusion_regarding_recommended_behavior_of_OPTION_method
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES#.28No_formal_issue.29:_Confusion_regarding_recommended_behavior_of_OPTION_method ←
15:55:07 <AxelPolleres> Lee: next issue on the agenda is the one around the OPTION method
Lee Feigenbaum: next issue on the agenda is the one around the OPTION method ←
15:56:31 <AxelPolleres> chime: ... if you send an OPTION or GET to a service you get the SD document.
Chimezie Ogbuji: ... if you send an OPTION or GET to a service you get the SD document. ←
15:56:57 <AxelPolleres> lee: that matches greg's understanding?
Lee Feigenbaum: that matches greg's understanding? ←
15:57:10 <AxelPolleres> greg: need to look that up, but sounds fine to me
Gregory Williams: need to look that up, but sounds fine to me ←
15:57:29 <AxelPolleres> lee: looks like what we had decided.
Lee Feigenbaum: looks like what we had decided. ←
15:58:01 <SteveH> can we discuss the xml:base issue?
Steve Harris: can we discuss the xml:base issue? ←
15:58:08 <AxelPolleres> ... any alternatives to suggest? If not, chime please take this as consensus to the group.
... any alternatives to suggest? If not, chime please take this as consensus to the group. ←
15:58:20 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES#.28Comment.29:_HTTP_DELETE_operation
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/HTTP-UPDATE-ISSUES#.28Comment.29:_HTTP_DELETE_operation ←
15:58:24 <Zakim> -EFranconi
Zakim IRC Bot: -EFranconi ←
15:59:02 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
16:00:54 <AxelPolleres> chime: summarising issue about BASE URI
Chimezie Ogbuji: summarising issue about BASE URI ←
16:01:26 <SteveH> that captured my viewpoint
Steve Harris: that captured my viewpoint ←
16:01:39 <AxelPolleres> Lee: is there any authority we can ask about that interpretation of XML base?
Lee Feigenbaum: is there any authority we can ask about that interpretation of XML base? ←
16:01:46 <AxelPolleres> sandro: can try to find out
Sandro Hawke: can try to find out ←
16:02:28 <AxelPolleres> lee: steve/andy, if we can confirm that this is a valid interpretation of BASE, would your concerns still stand?
Lee Feigenbaum: steve/andy, if we can confirm that this is a valid interpretation of BASE, would your concerns still stand? ←
16:02:55 <AxelPolleres> andy: still some concerns, leaves too much open(?)
Andy Seaborne: still some concerns, leaves too much open(?) ←
16:03:53 <AxelPolleres> steve: ... (similar concerns?) ... in 4store we banned relative URIs
Steve Harris: ... (similar concerns?) ... in 4store we banned relative URIs ←
16:03:56 <pgearon> +q
Paula Gearon: +q ←
16:04:22 <LeeF> ack pgearon
Lee Feigenbaum: ack pgearon ←
16:04:40 <AxelPolleres> just one thing for the records: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Dec/0005.html new comment also affects http-update-protocol
just one thing for the records: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Dec/0005.html new comment also affects http-update-protocol ←
16:05:04 <SteveH> note this only applies to ?graph=[URI]
Steve Harris: note this only applies to ?graph=[URI] ←
16:05:10 <SteveH> in the HTTP update protocol
Steve Harris: in the HTTP update protocol ←
16:05:43 <AxelPolleres> paul: I am working with RIF and relative URIs at the moment, similar issues. I would agree with banning them here
Paula Gearon: I am working with RIF and relative URIs at the moment, similar issues. I would agree with banning them here ←
16:06:11 <AxelPolleres> chime: handled properly doesn't leave much ambiguity
Chimezie Ogbuji: handled properly doesn't leave much ambiguity ←
16:06:18 <AxelPolleres> sandro: (disagrees)
Steve Harris: (disagrees) ←
16:06:25 <AxelPolleres> s/sandro/steve/
16:06:35 <AndyS> Example: whether it's a N-triple doc or an RDF/XML doc for the graph makes a difference but the same RDF data.
Andy Seaborne: Example: whether it's a N-triple doc or an RDF/XML doc for the graph makes a difference but the same RDF data. ←
16:08:57 <AndyS> I believe XML base says that it's only in-content: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#granularity
Andy Seaborne: I believe XML base says that it's only in-content: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#granularity ←
16:09:44 <SteveH> chimezie, what would you do with <doc><el xml:base="A"></el><el xml:base="B"></el></doc>?
Steve Harris: chimezie, what would you do with <doc><el xml:base="A"></el><el xml:base="B"></el></doc>? ←
16:10:06 <AxelPolleres> lee: sandro would you be willing to pursue on that...
Lee Feigenbaum: sandro would you be willing to pursue on that... ←
16:10:23 <AxelPolleres> (sandro and chime to figure out details after call)
(sandro and chime to figure out details after call) ←
16:10:36 <SteveH> bye all
Steve Harris: bye all ←
16:10:38 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
16:10:39 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
16:10:42 <Zakim> -pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgearon ←
16:10:56 <LeeF> ACTION: sandro to pursue answer to whether the base of a URI can come from inside the request's content (e.g. xml:base)
ACTION: sandro to pursue answer to whether the base of a URI can come from inside the request's content (e.g. xml:base) ←
16:11:08 <AxelPolleres> zakim, attendees?
zakim, attendees? ←
16:11:08 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, AxelPolleres.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, AxelPolleres. ←
16:11:10 <Zakim> -kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: -kasei ←
16:11:12 <AxelPolleres> rrsagent, make records public
rrsagent, make records public ←
Formatted by CommonScribe