14:00:13 <LeeF> Present: SteveH, LeeF, kasei, Olivier, MattPerry, bglimm, Chimezie, AndyS, Sandro, Arthur
14:00:18 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
14:00:18 <trackbot> Date: 22 May 2012
14:00:27 <Zakim> ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF, I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM already started ←
14:00:28 <SteveH> Zakim, who's on the phone
Steve Harris: Zakim, who's on the phone ←
14:00:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's on the phone', SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who's on the phone', SteveH ←
14:00:33 <SteveH> Zakim, who's on the phone?
Steve Harris: Zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:00:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P4 ←
14:00:38 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P4 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P4 is me ←
14:00:38 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:00:48 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
14:00:52 <Zakim> +kasei
Zakim IRC Bot: +kasei ←
14:01:02 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:01:05 <Zakim> +Olivier
Zakim IRC Bot: +Olivier ←
14:01:12 <LeeF> Regrets: pgearon, axel
14:01:28 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
14:01:40 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
14:01:46 <LeeF> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0142.html
14:01:53 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P16 is me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, ??P16 is me ←
14:01:53 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm; got it ←
14:02:11 <LeeF> scribenick: bglimm
(Scribe set to Birte Glimm)
14:02:15 <LeeF> zakim, who's here?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's here? ←
14:02:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, kasei, Olivier, MattPerry, bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, kasei, Olivier, MattPerry, bglimm ←
14:02:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see MattPerry, SteveH, Zakim, RRSAgent, Olivier, LeeF, AndyS, bglimm, pgearon, trackbot, iv_an_ru__, ya, NickH, kasei, ericP, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see MattPerry, SteveH, Zakim, RRSAgent, Olivier, LeeF, AndyS, bglimm, pgearon, trackbot, iv_an_ru__, ya, NickH, kasei, ericP, sandro ←
14:03:10 <Zakim> +Yigal
Zakim IRC Bot: +Yigal ←
14:03:55 <Zakim> +Chimezie
Zakim IRC Bot: +Chimezie ←
14:04:07 <LeeF> zakim, Yigal is AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, Yigal is AndyS ←
14:04:07 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:04:15 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:04:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, kasei, Olivier, MattPerry, bglimm, AndyS, Chimezie
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, kasei, Olivier, MattPerry, bglimm, AndyS, Chimezie ←
14:04:16 <AndyS> zakim, Yigal is temporarily me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, Yigal is temporarily me ←
14:04:17 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'Yigal'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'Yigal' ←
14:04:28 <chimezie> Zakim, mute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, mute me ←
14:04:31 <Zakim> Chimezie should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie should now be muted ←
14:04:47 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
14:05:15 <LeeF> topic: Admin
14:05:32 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-05-15
PROPOSED: Approve minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-05-15 ←
14:06:02 <bglimm> Main topic last week: updated property path test cases
Main topic last week: updated property path test cases ←
14:06:23 <Zakim> + +1.512.651.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.512.651.aaaa ←
14:06:25 <LeeF> close ACTION-619
Lee Feigenbaum: close ACTION-619 ←
14:06:25 <trackbot> ACTION-619 Approve PP test cases as per resolution closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-619 Approve PP test cases as per resolution closed ←
14:07:07 <AndyS> Austin, Texas
Andy Seaborne: Austin, Texas ←
14:07:12 <Zakim> - +1.512.651.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.512.651.aaaa ←
14:07:47 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0142.html
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0142.html ←
14:07:51 <Zakim> + +1.512.651.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.512.651.aabb ←
14:08:08 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-05-15
RESOLVED: Approve minutes from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-05-15 ←
14:08:11 <LeeF> zakim, aabb is Arthur
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, aabb is Arthur ←
14:08:11 <Zakim> +Arthur; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arthur; got it ←
14:08:15 <bglimm> Last week's minutes look ok?
Last week's minutes look ok? ←
14:08:25 <bglimm> (silence)
(silence) ←
14:09:15 <bglimm> LeeF: Next meeting 29th, usual time and place
Lee Feigenbaum: Next meeting 29th, usual time and place ←
14:09:19 <Olivier> regrets for next week
Olivier Corby: regrets for next week ←
14:09:29 <bglimm> Axel sends regrets (ESWC)
Axel sends regrets (ESWC) ←
14:09:39 <bglimm> LeeF: The week after is SemTec
Lee Feigenbaum: The week after is SemTec ←
14:09:56 <bglimm> ... Steve, Author, Lee and Matt will be there
... Steve, Arthur, Lee and Matt will be there ←
14:10:09 <LeeF> s/Author/Arthur
14:10:12 <bglimm> s/Authur/Arthur/
s/Authur/Arthur/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
14:10:29 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
14:10:46 <bglimm> We can decide whether we have a teleconf on the 5th of June next week
We can decide whether we have a teleconf on the 5th of June next week ←
14:11:19 <bglimm> LeeF: We want to see where we are for going to cand. REC or LC
Lee Feigenbaum: We want to see where we are for going to cand. REC or LC ←
14:11:36 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:11:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, kasei, Olivier, MattPerry, bglimm, AndyS, Chimezie (muted), Sandro, Arthur, ??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, kasei, Olivier, MattPerry, bglimm, AndyS, Chimezie (muted), Sandro, Arthur, ??P21 ←
14:12:01 <Zakim> -??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P21 ←
14:12:19 <LeeF> topic: Document Status
14:12:20 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_PR
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_PR ←
14:12:39 <LeeF> subtopic: Query
14:12:41 <bglimm> ... let's start with Query
... let's start with Query ←
14:13:05 <bglimm> ... Andy worked in the new VALUES (?) in
... Andy worked in the new VALUES (?) in ←
14:13:30 <bglimm> ... Steve asks whether we want to use UNBOUND instead of UNDEF
... Steve asks whether we want to use UNBOUND instead of UNDEF ←
14:13:36 <bglimm> ... as a keyword
... as a keyword ←
14:13:49 <bglimm> AndyS: I have a slight preference for UNDEF
Andy Seaborne: I have a slight preference for UNDEF ←
14:14:14 <bglimm> LeeF: Steve, you have a strong preference here?
Lee Feigenbaum: Steve, you have a strong preference here? ←
14:14:22 <bglimm> SteveH: I have a mild preference
Steve Harris: I have a mild preference ←
14:14:30 <SteveH> very mild :)
Steve Harris: very mild :) ←
14:14:35 <kasei> I share Steve's mild preference.
Gregory Williams: I share Steve's mild preference. ←
14:14:52 <bglimm> LeeF: Let's just keep it as it is then
Lee Feigenbaum: Let's just keep it as it is then ←
14:15:16 <bglimm> ... Andy & Steve can you summarize the TODOs
... Andy & Steve can you summarize the TODOs ←
14:15:26 <bglimm> AndyS: We need another review for the PP stuff
Andy Seaborne: We need another review for the PP stuff ←
14:16:01 <bglimm> ... There are some changes for string functions (?)
... There are some changes for string functions (?) ←
14:16:17 <bglimm> ... there are 4 open comments (mostly for the bindings stuff)
... there are 4 open comments (mostly for the bindings stuff) ←
14:16:37 <bglimm> ... some for syntax for prefixes (no change planned)
... some for syntax for prefixes (no change planned) ←
14:17:21 <bglimm> LeeF: no open issues for Query
Lee Feigenbaum: no open issues for Query ←
14:17:23 <kasei> q+
Gregory Williams: q+ ←
14:17:33 <LeeF> ack kasei
Lee Feigenbaum: ack kasei ←
14:17:48 <bglimm> kasei: We skipped over the test suite
Gregory Williams: We skipped over the test suite ←
14:17:51 <AndyS> pgearon is down to review PP.
Andy Seaborne: pgearon is down to review PP. ←
14:18:13 <bglimm> LeeF: We'll talk about this
Lee Feigenbaum: We'll talk about this ←
14:19:07 <bglimm> LeeF: After Paul's review, should we do review of the whole doc?
Lee Feigenbaum: After Paul's review, should we do review of the whole doc? ←
14:19:19 <bglimm> AndyS: If somebody has the time it would be great
Andy Seaborne: If somebody has the time it would be great ←
14:19:48 <AndyS> Also -- action number 620 Contact carlos to implement change from BINDINGS to VALUES in Fed-query for PR
Andy Seaborne: Also -- action number 620 Contact carlos to implement change from BINDINGS to VALUES in Fed-query for PR ←
14:19:48 <bglimm> LeeF: The substantive changes are PP, VALUES, little things like functions
Lee Feigenbaum: The substantive changes are PP, VALUES, little things like functions ←
14:20:00 <AndyS> Also -- Action number 619 Propose fix in definition of "in-scope" for BIND, cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0120.html
Andy Seaborne: Also -- Action number 618 Propose fix in definition of "in-scope" for BIND, cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012AprJun/0120.html ←
14:21:05 <AndyS> s/619/618/
14:21:42 <AndyS> (editorial - fix references - check for unused refs)
Andy Seaborne: (editorial - fix references - check for unused refs) ←
14:21:54 <bglimm> LeeF: We need one review for the changes in the functions stuff
Lee Feigenbaum: We need one review for the changes in the functions stuff ←
14:22:02 <bglimm> ... I suggest Greg or Matt
... I suggest Greg or Matt ←
14:22:06 <kasei> sure
Gregory Williams: sure ←
14:22:07 <MattPerry> Sure I can do it
Matthew Perry: Sure I can do it ←
14:22:29 <LeeF> zakim, choose Greg or Matt
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, choose Greg or Matt ←
14:22:29 <Zakim> I don't understand 'choose Greg or Matt', LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'choose Greg or Matt', LeeF ←
14:22:34 <LeeF> zakim, random number?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, random number? ←
14:22:34 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, LeeF.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, LeeF. ←
14:22:44 <AndyS> 4027659
Andy Seaborne: 4027659 ←
14:23:12 <bglimm> LeeF: I threw a coin and it's Matt
Lee Feigenbaum: I threw a coin and it's Matt ←
14:23:22 <LeeF> ACTION: Matthew to review UUID, STRBEFORE, STRAFTER changes in query
ACTION: Matthew to review UUID, STRBEFORE, STRAFTER changes in query ←
14:23:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-623 - Review UUID, STRBEFORE, STRAFTER changes in query [on Matthew Perry - due 2012-05-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-623 - Review UUID, STRBEFORE, STRAFTER changes in query [on Matthew Perry - due 2012-05-29]. ←
14:24:00 <bglimm> LeeF: With those two reviews, we are set
Lee Feigenbaum: With those two reviews, we are set ←
14:24:08 <Zakim> +??P29
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P29 ←
14:25:00 <Zakim> -??P29
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P29 ←
14:25:31 <bglimm> AndyS: There's an at risk box in the grammar section
Andy Seaborne: There's an at risk box in the grammar section ←
14:25:38 <bglimm> I think we wanted to remove it
I think we wanted to remove it ←
14:25:56 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#grammar
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#grammar ←
14:25:59 <bglimm> It covers the change for decimals and dates to be like in Turtle
It covers the change for decimals and dates to be like in Turtle ←
14:26:19 <bglimm> LeeF: We only have to remove it for PR
Lee Feigenbaum: We only have to remove it for PR ←
14:26:33 <bglimm> AndyS: It doesn't have a need any more
Andy Seaborne: It doesn't have a need any more ←
14:26:52 <bglimm> LeeF: Do we have a syntax test for that?
Lee Feigenbaum: Do we have a syntax test for that? ←
14:27:12 <bglimm> ... It would make sense to do that, so that implementors update their parsers
... It would make sense to do that, so that implementors update their parsers ←
14:27:30 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to draft syntax tests for at-risk grammar features of query
ACTION: Lee to draft syntax tests for at-risk grammar features of query ←
14:27:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-624 - Draft syntax tests for at-risk grammar features of query [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2012-05-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-624 - Draft syntax tests for at-risk grammar features of query [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2012-05-29]. ←
14:27:58 <bglimm> LeeF: I'll create the tests, we approve them (next week) and then remove the at risk note
Lee Feigenbaum: I'll create the tests, we approve them (next week) and then remove the at risk note ←
14:28:56 <bglimm> LeeF: Only the UUID test is not yet approve and the STRBEFORE/STRAFTER tests might need adptations
Lee Feigenbaum: Only the UUID test is not yet approve and the STRBEFORE/STRAFTER tests might need adptations ←
14:29:08 <bglimm> ... If there are no such tests we would need some
... If there are no such tests we would need some ←
14:29:50 <bglimm> ... Greg, will you look at the STRBEFORE/STRAFTER tests?
... Greg, will you look at the STRBEFORE/STRAFTER tests? ←
14:29:53 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to look at changes to or adding new STRBEFORE/STRAFTER tests to reflect updated behavior of error case (empty string, no language tag)
ACTION: Greg to look at changes to or adding new STRBEFORE/STRAFTER tests to reflect updated behavior of error case (empty string, no language tag) ←
14:29:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-625 - Look at changes to or adding new STRBEFORE/STRAFTER tests to reflect updated behavior of error case (empty string, no language tag) [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-05-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-625 - Look at changes to or adding new STRBEFORE/STRAFTER tests to reflect updated behavior of error case (empty string, no language tag) [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-05-29]. ←
14:29:54 <bglimm> kasei: Yes
Gregory Williams: Yes ←
14:30:41 <bglimm> LeeF: We we have the tests, we can check the implementations
Lee Feigenbaum: We we have the tests, we can check the implementations ←
14:31:20 <bglimm> ... we do not have any of the update editors here
... we do not have any of the update editors here ←
14:31:32 <bglimm> ... Does anybody here know the status?
... Does anybody here know the status? ←
14:31:42 <bglimm> ... (silence)
... (silence) ←
14:32:00 <bglimm> ... I'll draft an email to gather this information
... I'll draft an email to gather this information ←
14:33:06 <bglimm> .... I see one open Update comment about RDF merge and bnodes
.... I see one open Update comment about RDF merge and bnodes ←
14:33:12 <bglimm> .. from Kjetl
.. from Kjetl ←
14:33:14 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012May/0023.html
Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012May/0023.html ←
14:34:29 <bglimm> LeeF: Greg (others) any idea about the tests?
Lee Feigenbaum: Greg (others) any idea about the tests? ←
14:34:46 <bglimm> kasei: the copy and move tests have not yet been approved
Gregory Williams: the copy and move tests have not yet been approved ←
14:34:56 <bglimm> ... other than that we have three implementations
... other than that we have three implementations ←
14:35:05 <bglimm> LeeF: Can we approve the tests?
Lee Feigenbaum: Can we approve the tests? ←
14:35:11 <kasei> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/implementations/
Gregory Williams: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/implementations/ ←
14:35:17 <bglimm> kasei: Yes, they can be approved
Gregory Williams: Yes, they can be approved ←
14:36:22 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve the 6 COPY tests and 6 MOVE tests that are currently Not Classified
PROPOSED: Approve the 6 COPY tests and 6 MOVE tests that are currently Not Classified ←
14:36:29 <kasei> +1
Gregory Williams: +1 ←
14:36:38 <Olivier> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
14:36:46 <bglimm> I abstain as I haven't looked at them
I abstain as I haven't looked at them ←
14:37:03 <chimezie> same for me (for same reason)
Chimezie Ogbuji: same for me (for same reason) ←
14:37:26 <bglimm> AndyS: I have to run them
Andy Seaborne: I have to run them ←
14:37:41 <bglimm> ... I pass all of them
... I pass all of them ←
14:37:47 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve the 6 COPY tests and 6 MOVE tests that are currently Not Classified, bglimm and chimezie abstaining
RESOLVED: Approve the 6 COPY tests and 6 MOVE tests that are currently Not Classified, bglimm and chimezie abstaining ←
14:38:02 <bglimm> LeeF: Greg, can you mark them as approved
Lee Feigenbaum: Greg, can you mark them as approved ←
14:38:07 <bglimm> kasei: sure
Gregory Williams: sure ←
14:38:16 <LeeF> ACTION: Greg to mark MOVE/COPY tests approved
ACTION: Greg to mark MOVE/COPY tests approved ←
14:38:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-626 - Mark MOVE/COPY tests approved [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-05-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-626 - Mark MOVE/COPY tests approved [on Gregory Williams - due 2012-05-29]. ←
14:39:17 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
Chimezie Ogbuji: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:39:17 <Zakim> Chimezie should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie should no longer be muted ←
14:39:20 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012May/0009.html
Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012May/0009.html ←
14:39:35 <bglimm> LeeF: I want to discuss the James Leigh (?) comment
Lee Feigenbaum: I want to discuss the James Leigh )?) comment ←
14:39:44 <bglimm> s/(/)//
14:40:33 <bglimm> LeeF: There was some discussion around this
Lee Feigenbaum: There was some discussion around this ←
14:41:04 <bglimm> kasei: The SD doc was not designed to work with the graph store protocol and we didn't realise that this could be critical
Gregory Williams: The SD doc was not designed to work with the graph store protocol and we didn't realise that this could be critical ←
14:41:18 <bglimm> ... at the moment they don't work well together
... at the moment they don't work well together ←
14:41:49 <bglimm> ... the graph store doc is REST based and we cannot discover anything well then
... the graph store doc is REST based and we cannot discover anything well then ←
14:42:47 <bglimm> (scribe is lost now...)
(scribe is lost now...) ←
14:43:00 <AndyS> Valid concern - framing seems unhelpful - many assumptions about "REST style"
Andy Seaborne: Valid concern - framing seems unhelpful - many assumptions about "REST style" ←
14:43:11 <chimezie> There is a procedural issue with James comment: service discovery is out of scope for GSP
Chimezie Ogbuji: There is a procedural issue with James comment: service discovery is out of scope for GSP ←
14:43:41 <chimezie> There is just other questions about whether this is really a hardcoding issue since it applies to other specified HTTP APIs
Chimezie Ogbuji: There is just other questions about whether this is really a hardcoding issue since it applies to other specified HTTP APIs ←
14:44:05 <AndyS> The templating and {} substitution seems to be the tip of an iceberg.
Andy Seaborne: The templating and {} substitution seems to be the tip of an iceberg. ←
14:44:09 <bglimm> LeeF: I don't know whether there is anything we have to do right now
Lee Feigenbaum: I don't know whether there is anything we have to do right now ←
14:44:22 <bglimm> Sandro: I don't think we should change anything at this point
Sandro Hawke: I don't think we should change anything at this point ←
14:44:53 <bglimm> .... I think it is useful for what we need now with SPARQL
.... I think it is useful for what we need now with SPARQL ←
14:45:29 <bglimm> ... there is just no standard defined way (or only a complicated way) for getting from GSP to SD
... there is just no standard defined way (or only a complicated way) for getting from GSP to SD ←
14:46:15 <bglimm> Arthur?: We could just say that it is out of scope for this round of specification
Chimezie Ogbuji: We could just say that it is out of scope for this round of specification ←
14:46:26 <chimezie> s/Aurthur/chimezie
Chimezie Ogbuji: s/Aurthur/chimezie (warning: replacement failed) ←
14:46:35 <bglimm> AndyS: We could put it on the future work list
Andy Seaborne: We could put it on the future work list ←
14:46:51 <bglimm> ... we think there is nothing that blocks a future extension
... we think there is nothing that blocks a future extension ←
14:46:57 <chimezie> s/Arthur?/chimezie
14:47:40 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Future_Work_Items
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Future_Work_Items ←
14:47:49 <bglimm> LeeF: I'll add it to the future work items list, Chime, you can add this to your reply if you want
Lee Feigenbaum: I'll add it to the future work items list, Chime, you can add this to your reply if you want ←
14:48:46 <chimezie> Comments requiring minor changes (IMO): MSO-1 (reasonable status codes to support)
Chimezie Ogbuji: Comments requiring minor changes (IMO): MSO-1 (reasonable status codes to support) ←
14:49:06 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012May/0010.html
Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2012May/0010.html ←
14:49:09 <kasei> q+
Gregory Williams: q+ ←
14:49:28 <bglimm> LeeF: It's not clear whether they are appropriate
Lee Feigenbaum: It's not clear whether they are appropriate ←
14:49:28 <LeeF> ack kasei
Lee Feigenbaum: ack kasei ←
14:49:42 <bglimm> kasei: The codes he suggests are not used for what he wants them to be used for
Gregory Williams: The codes he suggests are not used for what he wants them to be used for ←
14:50:25 <bglimm> .... for example, the request is too large is different from the rest operation is being to large (query result)
.... for example, the request is too large is different from the rest operation is being to large (query result) ←
14:51:13 <bglimm> LeeF: My reading of GSP is that HTTP status codes can be used as long as they are in line with the HTTP spec. We should clarify this
Lee Feigenbaum: My reading of GSP is that HTTP status codes can be used as long as they are in line with the HTTP spec. We should clarify this ←
14:51:41 <chimezie> "implementations MUST include a status code [RFC2616] appropriate for the operation indicated and the result from invoking the operation"
Chimezie Ogbuji: "implementations MUST include a status code [RFC2616] appropriate for the operation indicated and the result from invoking the operation" ←
14:51:48 <bglimm> chimezie: I agree with Greg
Chimezie Ogbuji: I agree with Greg ←
14:52:42 <chimezie> in 5.1 Status Codes
Chimezie Ogbuji: in 5.1 Status Codes ←
14:52:49 <bglimm> ... I wonder if our phrasing regarding the status codes is clear enough
... I wonder if our phrasing regarding the status codes is clear enough ←
14:53:05 <LeeF> """
Lee Feigenbaum: """ ←
14:53:07 <LeeF> The SPARQL Protocol uses the response status codes defined in HTTP to
Lee Feigenbaum: The SPARQL Protocol uses the response status codes defined in HTTP to ←
14:53:07 <LeeF> indicate the success or failure of an operation. Consult the HTTP
Lee Feigenbaum: indicate the success or failure of an operation. Consult the HTTP ←
14:53:07 <LeeF> specification [RFC2616] for detailed definitions of each status code.
Lee Feigenbaum: specification [RFC2616] for detailed definitions of each status code. ←
14:53:07 <LeeF> While a protocol service should use a 2XX HTTP
Lee Feigenbaum: While a protocol service should use a 2XX HTTP ←
14:53:07 <LeeF> response code for a successful query, it may
Lee Feigenbaum: response code for a successful query, it may ←
14:53:08 <LeeF> choose instead to use a 3XX response code as per HTTP.
Lee Feigenbaum: choose instead to use a 3XX response code as per HTTP. ←
14:53:10 <LeeF> """
Lee Feigenbaum: """ ←
14:53:58 <bglimm> LeeF: I think the SPARQL protocol spec is a bit more specific, but there's nothing wrong with this text IMO
Lee Feigenbaum: I think the SPARQL protocol spec is a bit more specific, but there's nothing wrong with this text IMO ←
14:53:59 <LeeF> """
Lee Feigenbaum: """ ←
14:54:01 <LeeF> The HTTP response codes applicable to an unsuccessful query operation include:400 if the SPARQL query supplied in the request is not a legal sequence of characters in the language defined by the SPARQL grammar; or,500 if the service fails to execute the query. SPARQL
Lee Feigenbaum: The HTTP response codes applicable to an unsuccessful query operation include:400 if the SPARQL query supplied in the request is not a legal sequence of characters in the language defined by the SPARQL grammar; or,500 if the service fails to execute the query. SPARQL ←
14:54:01 <LeeF> Protocol services may also return a 500 response code if they
Lee Feigenbaum: Protocol services may also return a 500 response code if they ←
14:54:01 <LeeF> refuse to execute a query. This
Lee Feigenbaum: refuse to execute a query. This ←
14:54:01 <LeeF> response does not indicate whether the server may or may not
Lee Feigenbaum: response does not indicate whether the server may or may not ←
14:54:02 <LeeF> process a subsequent, identical request or requests. A protocol service may use other 4XX or 5XX HTTP response codes for other failure conditions, as per HTTP.
Lee Feigenbaum: process a subsequent, identical request or requests. A protocol service may use other 4XX or 5XX HTTP response codes for other failure conditions, as per HTTP. ←
14:54:05 <LeeF> """
Lee Feigenbaum: """ ←
14:54:47 <bglimm> Chimezie: I draft a response saying that the first and the last use is not correct
Chimezie Ogbuji: I draft a response saying that the first and the last use is not correct ←
14:56:00 <LeeF> Is there anything to review after the last pub?
Lee Feigenbaum: Is there anything to review after the last pub? ←
14:56:27 <chimezie> no
Chimezie Ogbuji: no ←
14:56:32 <LeeF> Only MSO comment open?
Lee Feigenbaum: Only MSO comment open? ←
14:56:40 <chimezie> Yes
Chimezie Ogbuji: Yes ←
14:56:50 <LeeF> We have to check the test suite status next week (running out of time)
Lee Feigenbaum: We have to check the test suite status next week (running out of time) ←
14:57:02 <LeeF> protocol will be a longer discussion
Lee Feigenbaum: protocol will be a longer discussion ←
14:57:12 <LeeF> any other business for the last minutes?
Lee Feigenbaum: any other business for the last minutes? ←
14:57:23 <bglimm> (silence)
(silence) ←
14:57:38 <LeeF> Thanks to all
Lee Feigenbaum: Thanks to all ←
14:57:50 <LeeF> Adjourned
Lee Feigenbaum: Adjourned ←
Formatted by CommonScribe