edit

SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 10 January 2012

Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0042.html
Present
Gregory Williams, Lee Feigenbaum, Sandro Hawke, Matthew Perry, Paula Gearon, Andy Seaborne, Birte Glimm, Eric Prud'hommeaux
Regrets
Steve Harris, Carlos Buil Aranda, Olivier Corby, Axel Polleres
Chair
Lee Feigenbaum
Scribe
Gregory Williams
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-03 link
  2. The Graph Store Protocol explicitly applies only to SPARQL 1.1 Graph Stores, AndyS and EricP abstaining link
  3. Remove RFC2119 text from section 5.7 HTTP PATCH and make it clear that SPARQL 1.1 Update requests are an option for using PATCH but not the only possibility link
Topics
<kasei> Present: kasei, LeeF, sandro, MattPerry, pgearon, AndyS, bglimm, ericp
14:58:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-sparql-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/10-sparql-irc

14:58:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:58:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277

14:58:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes

14:58:59 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:58:59 <trackbot> Date: 10 January 2012
14:59:07 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started

14:59:14 <Zakim> +kasei

Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei

14:59:27 <LeeF> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0042.html
14:59:31 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:59:38 <LeeF> Regrets: SteveH, Carlos, Olivier, Axel
15:00:12 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF; got it

15:00:25 <Zakim> +sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro

15:01:12 <Zakim> +MattPerry; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry; got it

15:01:13 <Zakim> +pgearon

Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon

15:02:39 <Zakim> +Eric

Zakim IRC Bot: +Eric

15:02:54 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it

15:04:18 <kasei> scribenick: kasei

(Scribe set to Gregory Williams)

15:04:34 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-03

PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-03

15:05:08 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-03

RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-01-03

15:06:22 <kasei> topic: Graph Store Protocol

1. Graph Store Protocol

15:06:39 <kasei> LeeF: starting with sandro's email

Lee Feigenbaum: starting with sandro's email

15:06:44 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0030.html

Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0030.html

15:07:39 <kasei> sandro: my concerns were with the scope of the document

Sandro Hawke: my concerns were with the scope of the document

15:07:50 <kasei> ... I understood the scope to be 'this is how you do RESTful RDF'

... I understood the scope to be 'this is how you do RESTful RDF'

15:08:04 <kasei> ... I don't think it's OK to constrain all POSTs of RDF to mean merge.

... I don't think it's OK to constrain all POSTs of RDF to mean merge.

15:08:09 <kasei> ... which is what the draft says.

... which is what the draft says.

15:08:33 <kasei> ... I don't believe it's OK to have normative language in a section labeled non-normative/informative.

... I don't believe it's OK to have normative language in a section labeled non-normative/informative.

15:08:41 <kasei> ... which happens in the PATCH section.

... which happens in the PATCH section.

15:08:53 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/#http-patch

Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/#http-patch

15:09:18 <kasei> ... I don't think it's OK to say that servers SHOULD accept SPARQL Update requests for PATCH.

... I don't think it's OK to say that servers SHOULD accept SPARQL Update requests for PATCH.

15:09:29 <kasei> ... charter says this is an alternative to SPARQL Update.

... charter says this is an alternative to SPARQL Update.

15:09:56 <kasei> ... I believe there was agreement in the GS telecon to change SHOULD to a MAY

... I believe there was agreement in the GS telecon to change SHOULD to a MAY

15:10:24 <AndyS> "SPARQL 1.1 Update can be used as a patch document. "

Andy Seaborne: "SPARQL 1.1 Update can be used as a patch document. "

15:10:52 <kasei> ... I understood that Greg raised some concern about this document and service descriptions.

... I understood that Greg raised some concern about this document and service descriptions.

15:11:02 <kasei> ... he didn't want to make changes to SD as its moved to LC.

... he didn't want to make changes to SD as its moved to LC.

15:11:20 <kasei> ... not my concern, but came up during the GS meeting.

... not my concern, but came up during the GS meeting.

15:11:59 <LeeF> kasei: i feel it's too late to make big changes to service description. i don't think we should be publishing these two documents where the graph store document points to SD and says to use it, and then SD says nothing about the graph store protocol

Gregory Williams: i feel it's too late to make big changes to service description. i don't think we should be publishing these two documents where the graph store document points to SD and says to use it, and then SD says nothing about the graph store protocol [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:12:21 <sandro> kasei: I don't think we should publishing two documents where GS points to SD, but SD says nothing about GS.   I'd much rather leave it for consensus the future.

Gregory Williams: I don't think we should publishing two documents where GS points to SD, but SD says nothing about GS. I'd much rather leave it for consensus the future. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:12:58 <kasei> sandro: section 5.5 references the service description.

Sandro Hawke: section 5.5 references the service description.

15:13:29 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#http-post

Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#http-post

15:14:10 <kasei> sandro: when you POST/PUT RDF content, and the content uses relative URIs, what should you understand as the base URI?

Sandro Hawke: when you POST/PUT RDF content, and the content uses relative URIs, what should you understand as the base URI?

15:14:21 <kasei> ... document is silent on this issue.

... document is silent on this issue.

15:14:29 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm; got it

15:15:10 <kasei> sandro: reading Andy's message, we have a different understanding on scope of document.

Sandro Hawke: reading Andy's message, we have a different understanding on scope of document.

15:15:28 <kasei> ... Andy and Steve understand it as applying only to this type of graphstore.

... Andy and Steve understand it as applying only to this type of graphstore.

15:15:42 <kasei> ... if we add langauge to clarify that scope, I don't have the same concerns.

... if we add langauge to clarify that scope, I don't have the same concerns.

15:15:59 <kasei> LeeF: you wouldn't be concerned if we did that that it opens the door to confusion?

Lee Feigenbaum: you wouldn't be concerned if we did that that it opens the door to confusion?

15:16:27 <kasei> ... "this is how you deal with RDF in a Graph Store"

... "this is how you deal with RDF in a Graph Store"

15:16:51 <kasei> sandro: I think we have that problem any way we slice it.

Sandro Hawke: I think we have that problem any way we slice it.

15:17:08 <kasei> ... we have to leave some opening.

... we have to leave some opening.

15:17:23 <kasei> ... we don't know enough yet how it will work.

... we don't know enough yet how it will work.

15:17:41 <kasei> ericP: most of the document is intuitively how RDF works using HTTP.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: most of the document is intuitively how RDF works using HTTP.

15:17:54 <kasei> ... best practice for RDF graphs on the web.

... best practice for RDF graphs on the web.

15:18:06 <kasei> sandro: that's why I proposed text for the abstract.

Sandro Hawke: that's why I proposed text for the abstract.

15:18:49 <kasei> ericP: I don't think your text is going to do the job explaining about how rdf graphs are manipulated on the web.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't think your text is going to do the job explaining about how rdf graphs are manipulated on the web.

15:19:09 <kasei> sandro: 90% of this document is redundant. it already comes from existing specs. small bits that aren't redundant.

Sandro Hawke: 90% of this document is redundant. it already comes from existing specs. small bits that aren't redundant.

15:19:36 <kasei> LeeF: if the scope of this document is doing REST operations when you have a Graph Store, are people happy with that?

Lee Feigenbaum: if the scope of this document is doing REST operations when you have a Graph Store, are people happy with that?

15:20:08 <LeeF> straw poll: Would you be happy with explicitly scoping the Graph Store Protocol specification such that it applies only to SPARQL 1.1 Graph Stores?

Lee Feigenbaum: straw poll: Would you be happy with explicitly scoping the Graph Store Protocol specification such that it applies only to SPARQL 1.1 Graph Stores?

15:20:15 <ericP> -.5

Eric Prud'hommeaux: -.5

15:20:30 <ericP> that is, i don't want to be a total pain

Eric Prud'hommeaux: that is, i don't want to be a total pain

15:20:37 <sandro> +0   (not thrilled, but I think it's the best path forward today)

Sandro Hawke: +0 (not thrilled, but I think it's the best path forward today)

15:20:45 <AndyS> +1

Andy Seaborne: +1

15:20:51 <AndyS> (caveat)

Andy Seaborne: (caveat)

15:20:53 <kasei> +.5

+.5

15:20:54 <bglimm> +0

Birte Glimm: +0

15:20:57 <MattPerry> +1

Matthew Perry: +1

15:21:06 <pgearon> +1

Paula Gearon: +1

15:21:11 <LeeF> LeeF: SteveH is pretty clearly +1 from email

Lee Feigenbaum: SteveH is pretty clearly +1 from email [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:22:05 <bglimm> I'm just not totally swapped in on this, so I don't want to take a strong position on it, but it sounds ok to me

Birte Glimm: I'm just not totally swapped in on this, so I don't want to take a strong position on it, but it sounds ok to me

15:22:39 <kasei> LeeF: recommend there's concensus around Chime.

Lee Feigenbaum: recommend there's concensus around Chime.

15:23:06 <sandro> LeeF: I'd like to get consensus on the call, whch hopefully Chime will agree with.

Lee Feigenbaum: I'd like to get consensus on the call, whch hopefully Chime will agree with. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:23:17 <kasei> ericP: there's going to be a set of best practices on using HTTP to manage RDF.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: there's going to be a set of best practices on using HTTP to manage RDF.

15:23:25 <kasei> ... most of that data will be accessible via SPARQL.

... most of that data will be accessible via SPARQL.

15:23:33 <kasei> ... arbitrary decisions on what POST does.

... arbitrary decisions on what POST does.

15:23:42 <AndyS> We have a non-SPARQL implementation as well.

Andy Seaborne: We have a non-SPARQL implementation as well.

15:24:07 <kasei> LeeF: some of this is speculative. we don't know which direction the world is going to move in.

Lee Feigenbaum: some of this is speculative. we don't know which direction the world is going to move in.

15:24:25 <kasei> ... want to give people an out.

... want to give people an out.

15:24:53 <kasei> ... options are SHOULD instead of MUST, removing normative language, defining set of resources which act differently, ...

... options are SHOULD instead of MUST, removing normative language, defining set of resources which act differently, ...

15:25:35 <kasei> ... if we took the out on saying it applies only to SPARQL 1.1 graph stores, can be a second document which says how to do it with certain classes of resources.

... if we took the out on saying it applies only to SPARQL 1.1 graph stores, can be a second document which says how to do it with certain classes of resources.

15:26:07 <kasei> ... or we may find the problems don't crop up

... or we may find the problems don't crop up

15:26:12 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

15:26:13 <kasei> ericP: I don't see those as all the same.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't see those as all the same.

15:26:43 <kasei> ... if I'm doing something else where I've got a set of things acting like graph stores, and a set that act like other things,

... if I'm doing something else where I've got a set of things acting like graph stores, and a set that act like other things,

15:27:03 <LeeF> ack sandro

Lee Feigenbaum: ack sandro

15:27:04 <sandro> eric: Is the scope related to SPARQL

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Is the scope related to SPARQL [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:27:12 <kasei> ericP, scribe assist?

ericP, scribe assist?

15:27:25 <LeeF> ericP: is the scope of this document the things that act the way the document says or any graphs that are in a store that are SPARQL 1.1'able?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: is the scope of this document the things that act the way the document says or any graphs that are in a store that are SPARQL 1.1'able? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:27:34 <sandro> eric: Is the scope definition based on SPARQL or self-standing.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Is the scope definition based on SPARQL or self-standing. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:28:08 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+

15:28:12 <kasei> sandro: I think distinction between choice that most matters is that there's some way the client can tell.

Sandro Hawke: I think distinction between choice that most matters is that there's some way the client can tell.

15:28:22 <kasei> ... to know what they can do with the resource.

... to know what they can do with the resource.

15:28:36 <kasei> ... not doing that with any of the solutions except for defining a class of resources that act in a certain way.

... not doing that with any of the solutions except for defining a class of resources that act in a certain way.

15:29:00 <LeeF> ack AndyS

Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS

15:29:24 <kasei> AndyS: wondering how much weight to give to existing systems.

Andy Seaborne: wondering how much weight to give to existing systems.

15:29:58 <kasei> LeeF: think there are at least 2 existing systems that we know about.

Lee Feigenbaum: think there are at least 2 existing systems that we know about.

15:30:19 <kasei> AndyS: 4store, 5store do. quite a lot of users of 4store.

Andy Seaborne: 4store, 5store do. quite a lot of users of 4store.

15:30:48 <kasei> sandro: are there clients that rely on this behaviour? (assuming POST=merge)

Sandro Hawke: are there clients that rely on this behaviour? (assuming POST=merge)

15:31:30 <kasei> ericP: if we say SHOULD, we're encouraging clients to optimistically try something.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: if we say SHOULD, we're encouraging clients to optimistically try something.

15:31:49 <kasei> ... looking for clients that are doing what this spec specifies, and without out of band knowledge, assuming they can do POST=merge.

... looking for clients that are doing what this spec specifies, and without out of band knowledge, assuming they can do POST=merge.

15:32:39 <kasei> sandro: we're not ready to set a standard to define how you know what POST does.

Sandro Hawke: we're not ready to set a standard to define how you know what POST does.

15:33:07 <kasei> ... implementations that behave a specific way don't speak to what clients can expect.

... implementations that behave a specific way don't speak to what clients can expect.

15:33:24 <kasei> ... if you do a GET and get metadata or data that tells you how to POST...

... if you do a GET and get metadata or data that tells you how to POST...

15:34:18 <kasei> sandro: g-box can be self describing, doesn't need data/metadata distinction.

Sandro Hawke: g-box can be self describing, doesn't need data/metadata distinction.

15:35:09 <kasei> LeeF: I agree the different outs have different implications in terms of longevity, consensus...

Lee Feigenbaum: I agree the different outs have different implications in terms of longevity, consensus...

15:35:37 <kasei> ... my take is that people in SW world aware of SPARQL will not be deterred by narrow scope.

... my take is that people in SW world aware of SPARQL will not be deterred by narrow scope.

15:35:52 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0405.html

Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0405.html

15:36:09 <kasei> ... main worry is whether the narrow scoping curtails implementations, reduces feedback on wider use.

... main worry is whether the narrow scoping curtails implementations, reduces feedback on wider use.

15:36:35 <kasei> ... I think we can overcome that risk by noting the scope, let people decide how to do REST outside of Graph Stores.

... I think we can overcome that risk by noting the scope, let people decide how to do REST outside of Graph Stores.

15:36:37 <sandro> lee: This is how you do REST with RDF that's in a SPARQL Graph Store.

Lee Feigenbaum: This is how you do REST with RDF that's in a SPARQL Graph Store. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:36:51 <ericP> ack me

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me

15:37:00 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+

15:37:04 <LeeF> ack AndyS

Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS

15:37:15 <kasei> AndyS: I don't want to see speculation in the document. Think that's harmful.

Andy Seaborne: I don't want to see speculation in the document. Think that's harmful.

15:37:22 <kasei> LeeF: this proposal wouldn't involve speculation.

Lee Feigenbaum: this proposal wouldn't involve speculation.

15:37:44 <kasei> AndyS: when we had the GS telecon, we had agreed on text.

Andy Seaborne: when we had the GS telecon, we had agreed on text.

15:37:52 <ericP> q+ to say that this sounds like a note in that it's proposing some ideas with unknown scope and conformance

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say that this sounds like a note in that it's proposing some ideas with unknown scope and conformance

15:37:56 <LeeF> ack ericP

Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericP

15:37:56 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that this sounds like a note in that it's proposing some ideas with unknown scope and conformance

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say that this sounds like a note in that it's proposing some ideas with unknown scope and conformance

15:38:01 <ericP> ack eric

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack eric

15:38:42 <kasei> ericP: sounds like a great note. "we think this has some applicability, not sure what it is. would like the world to see how it works for them..."

Eric Prud'hommeaux: sounds like a great note. "we think this has some applicability, not sure what it is. would like the world to see how it works for them..."

15:38:54 <kasei> LeeF: we know what we want it to do in the context of SPARQL Graph Stores.

Lee Feigenbaum: we know what we want it to do in the context of SPARQL Graph Stores.

15:39:01 <kasei> ... people happy with that design.

... people happy with that design.

15:39:17 <kasei> ... from a perspective broader than this WG, we hope that's what happens.

... from a perspective broader than this WG, we hope that's what happens.

15:39:50 <kasei> ... for people who aren't doing SPARQL Graph Stores, hope the text acts as a guide to them

... for people who aren't doing SPARQL Graph Stores, hope the text acts as a guide to them

15:39:55 <sandro> Lee: So this will seem like a WG NOTE to people not doing SPARQL Graph Stores.

Lee Feigenbaum: So this will seem like a WG NOTE to people not doing SPARQL Graph Stores. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:40:26 <kasei> ericP: does this discourage me from adding SPARQL 1.1 to something that had a different behaviour on POST?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: does this discourage me from adding SPARQL 1.1 to something that had a different behaviour on POST?

15:40:59 <kasei> LeeF: if you have a 1.1 Graph Store and you wilfully disobey the spec, you'll lose interop, but the world won't explode and you'll come to the next WG with valuable feedback.

Lee Feigenbaum: if you have a 1.1 Graph Store and you wilfully disobey the spec, you'll lose interop, but the world won't explode and you'll come to the next WG with valuable feedback.

15:41:26 <kasei> ... similar to intentional mis-use of RDF w.r.t. RDF WG.

... similar to intentional mis-use of RDF w.r.t. RDF WG.

15:41:55 <sandro> I'm losing Lee

Sandro Hawke: I'm losing Lee

15:41:57 <kasei> ... balancing tradeoff between getting things done and not precluding future work.

... balancing tradeoff between getting things done and not precluding future work.

15:41:58 <sandro> Others?

Sandro Hawke: Others?

15:42:31 <kasei> ericP: annotea had two classes of resources. POST to create annotations. GET/PUT on those annotations.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: annotea had two classes of resources. POST to create annotations. GET/PUT on those annotations.

15:42:44 <kasei> ... if a client expected POST to append, and it created something new, is that "exploding"?

... if a client expected POST to append, and it created something new, is that "exploding"?

15:42:57 <kasei> LeeF: isn't that covered by the spec if you're POSTing to a Graph Store?

Lee Feigenbaum: isn't that covered by the spec if you're POSTing to a Graph Store?

15:43:13 <kasei> ericP: it affects two graphs. the "all annotations" and the new annotation.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: it affects two graphs. the "all annotations" and the new annotation.

15:43:21 <kasei> LeeF: do you think that violates the spec?

Lee Feigenbaum: do you think that violates the spec?

15:43:48 <kasei> AndyS: it's only merge when you're POSTing to a graph container.

Andy Seaborne: it's only merge when you're POSTing to a graph container.

15:44:47 <kasei> ... if you POST to a graph store, doesn't specify the operation has to be append.

... if you POST to a graph store, doesn't specify the operation has to be append.

15:44:58 <LeeF> zakim, eric is ericp

Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, eric is ericp

15:44:58 <Zakim> +ericp; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ericp; got it

15:45:10 <kasei> ... I think it says it creates 'a subsidiary resource'

... I think it says it creates 'a subsidiary resource'

15:45:25 <kasei> ... which is what ATOM protocol does as well

... which is what ATOM protocol does as well

15:46:27 <kasei> ericP: issue arises when I GET a resource after POSTing to it, and the GET isn't returning the merge of the previous POST.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: issue arises when I GET a resource after POSTing to it, and the GET isn't returning the merge of the previous POST.

15:46:35 <kasei> ... I guess the document doesn't specify that case.

... I guess the document doesn't specify that case.

15:46:56 <AndyS> The language is "RDF graph content identified by the request or encoded IRI"

Andy Seaborne: The language is "RDF graph content identified by the request or encoded IRI"

15:47:01 <kasei> LeeF: unless the client has out of band knowledge, it can't make assumptions anyway.

Lee Feigenbaum: unless the client has out of band knowledge, it can't make assumptions anyway.

15:47:19 <kasei> ericP: so what's the use case for this document. are there clients that make this assumption?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: so what's the use case for this document. are there clients that make this assumption?

15:47:53 <kasei> LeeF: I don't know if there are clients that do that.

Lee Feigenbaum: I don't know if there are clients that do that.

15:47:57 <LeeF> PROPOSED: The Graph Store Protocol explicitly applies only to SPARQL 1.1 Graph Stores

PROPOSED: The Graph Store Protocol explicitly applies only to SPARQL 1.1 Graph Stores

15:48:00 <kasei> sandro: can we move forward with the compromise?

Sandro Hawke: can we move forward with the compromise?

15:48:18 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

15:48:39 <kasei> AndyS: I think this is the right way forward.

Andy Seaborne: I think this is the right way forward.

15:49:12 <kasei> ... I don't like the "RDF content" wording

... I don't like the "RDF content" wording

15:49:23 <kasei> sandro: I think that's an editorial matter we can deal with later.

Sandro Hawke: I think that's an editorial matter we can deal with later.

15:49:32 <kasei> AndyS: it's been important to Chime

Andy Seaborne: it's been important to Chime

15:49:56 <ericP> abstain

Eric Prud'hommeaux: abstain

15:50:13 <LeeF> RESOLVED: The Graph Store Protocol explicitly applies only to SPARQL 1.1 Graph Stores, AndyS and EricP abstaining

RESOLVED: The Graph Store Protocol explicitly applies only to SPARQL 1.1 Graph Stores, AndyS and EricP abstaining

15:51:08 <LeeF> AndyS: Abstaining because we had an agreement previously and I feel that this is taking things backwards by inroducing things that are of a speculative nature for a future WG

Andy Seaborne: Abstaining because we had an agreement previously and I feel that this is taking things backwards by inroducing things that are of a speculative nature for a future WG [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:51:56 <AndyS> I would like to leave that future WG as free to work as possible and not speculate on it now.

Andy Seaborne: I would like to leave that future WG as free to work as possible and not speculate on it now.

15:51:58 <kasei> sandro: resolution takes care of points 1 and 5 in my email.

Sandro Hawke: resolution takes care of points 1 and 5 in my email.

15:52:10 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+

15:52:11 <kasei> LeeF: points 2 and 3 address the PATCH section.

Lee Feigenbaum: points 2 and 3 address the PATCH section.

15:52:33 <kasei> ... group feels there's not enough experience in using PATCH to make normative recommendations.

... group feels there's not enough experience in using PATCH to make normative recommendations.

15:53:15 <kasei> ... propose that RFC2119 text be removed from 5.7, and that the english text be adjusted to indicate that SPARQL Update requets are an option for PATCH, but not the only option.

... propose that RFC2119 text be removed from 5.7, and that the english text be adjusted to indicate that SPARQL Update requets are an option for PATCH, but not the only option.

15:53:33 <kasei> sandro: why not MAY for using SPARQL for PATCH, and make the section normative?

Sandro Hawke: why not MAY for using SPARQL for PATCH, and make the section normative?

15:53:52 <kasei> LeeF: we weren't comfortable recommending with normative text because of lack of experience.

Lee Feigenbaum: we weren't comfortable recommending with normative text because of lack of experience.

15:54:03 <LeeF> ack AndyS

Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS

15:54:26 <kasei> AndyS: request 4.5 (about base URI) be regarded as a technical point, not a decision of the WG.

Andy Seaborne: request 4.5 (about base URI) be regarded as a technical point, not a decision of the WG.

15:54:41 <kasei> LeeF: does the right answer affect the document?

Lee Feigenbaum: does the right answer affect the document?

15:54:56 <kasei> AndyS: it might, yes.

Andy Seaborne: it might, yes.

15:55:08 <kasei> ... it isn't a question about designing a system. question about what is already defined.

... it isn't a question about designing a system. question about what is already defined.

15:55:46 <kasei> LeeF: feels like something we could omit, or change after LC without affecting conformance requirements.

Lee Feigenbaum: feels like something we could omit, or change after LC without affecting conformance requirements.

15:55:57 <kasei> AndyS: is that approach acceptable to everybody?

Andy Seaborne: is that approach acceptable to everybody?

15:56:26 <kasei> sandro: I believe the specs are silent on this matter.

Sandro Hawke: I believe the specs are silent on this matter.

15:56:49 <kasei> AndyS: we had a discussion a long time ago in which we decided the specs weren't silent on the issue.

Andy Seaborne: we had a discussion a long time ago in which we decided the specs weren't silent on the issue.

15:56:56 <kasei> sandro: this spec doesn't say anything about it, right?

Sandro Hawke: this spec doesn't say anything about it, right?

15:56:59 <kasei> LeeF: correct

Lee Feigenbaum: correct

15:57:09 <kasei> sandro: I don't feel that we need to say anything about it here.

Sandro Hawke: I don't feel that we need to say anything about it here.

15:57:32 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Remove RFC2119 text from section 5.7 HTTP PATCH and make it clear that SPARQL 1.1 Update requests are an advised option for using PATCH but not the only possibility

PROPOSED: Remove RFC2119 text from section 5.7 HTTP PATCH and make it clear that SPARQL 1.1 Update requests are an advised option for using PATCH but not the only possibility

15:57:54 <kasei> +1

+1

15:58:05 <sandro> "advised" ?

Sandro Hawke: "advised" ?

15:58:10 <kasei> AndyS: there are 2 things you can send a PATCH to. Graph Store, or the graph content.

Andy Seaborne: there are 2 things you can send a PATCH to. Graph Store, or the graph content.

15:58:19 <kasei> ... I think it's meaningless to send it to graph content.

... I think it's meaningless to send it to graph content.

15:58:37 <kasei> ... in your wording, are you meaning all uses of PATCH? Or just to the graph content?

... in your wording, are you meaning all uses of PATCH? Or just to the graph content?

15:58:54 <kasei> LeeF: wasn't proposing changing the section beyond this.

Lee Feigenbaum: wasn't proposing changing the section beyond this.

15:59:18 <kasei> sandro: currently about graph content. would be reasonable to put in text about graph stores, but not there currently.

Sandro Hawke: currently about graph content. would be reasonable to put in text about graph stores, but not there currently.

15:59:36 <kasei> LeeF: can we take that as a separate point to email?

Lee Feigenbaum: can we take that as a separate point to email?

15:59:57 <kasei> sandro: don't think it makes a lot of sense to use SPARQL Update with PATCH.

Sandro Hawke: don't think it makes a lot of sense to use SPARQL Update with PATCH.

16:00:09 <kasei> AndyS: does protocol talk about PATCH?

Andy Seaborne: does protocol talk about PATCH?

16:00:11 <kasei> LeeF: no.

Lee Feigenbaum: no.

16:00:24 <Zakim> -ericp

Zakim IRC Bot: -ericp

16:00:32 <kasei> LeeF: any objections?

Lee Feigenbaum: any objections?

16:00:45 <AndyS> +1

Andy Seaborne: +1

16:00:47 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Remove RFC2119 text from section 5.7 HTTP PATCH and make it clear that SPARQL 1.1 Update requests are an option for using PATCH but not the only possibility

PROPOSED: Remove RFC2119 text from section 5.7 HTTP PATCH and make it clear that SPARQL 1.1 Update requests are an option for using PATCH but not the only possibility

16:00:50 <kasei> sandro: "advice" is a normative thing.

Sandro Hawke: "advice" is a normative thing.

16:01:05 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

16:01:19 <bglimm> +1

Birte Glimm: +1

16:01:23 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Remove RFC2119 text from section 5.7 HTTP PATCH and make it clear that SPARQL 1.1 Update requests are an option for using PATCH but not the only possibility

RESOLVED: Remove RFC2119 text from section 5.7 HTTP PATCH and make it clear that SPARQL 1.1 Update requests are an option for using PATCH but not the only possibility

16:02:14 <AndyS> Regrets for next time

Andy Seaborne: Regrets for next time

16:02:55 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended

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

16:02:57 <Zakim> Attendees were kasei, +1.617.553.aaaa, LeeF, sandro, +1.917.522.aabb, +1.603.897.aacc, MattPerry, pgearon, AndyS, bglimm, ericp

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were kasei, +1.617.553.aaaa, LeeF, sandro, +1.917.522.aabb, +1.603.897.aacc, MattPerry, pgearon, AndyS, bglimm, ericp



Formatted by CommonScribe