13:47:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/11-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/08/11-sparql-irc ←
13:47:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:47:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
13:47:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes ←
13:47:36 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:47:36 <trackbot> Date: 11 August 2009
13:47:40 <LeeF> Zakim, this will be sparql
Lee Feigenbaum: Zakim, this will be sparql ←
13:47:40 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes ←
13:47:42 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
13:47:45 <LeeF> Scribe: SimonS
(Scribe set to Simon Schenk)
13:47:47 <LeeF> Scribenick: SimonS
13:48:01 <LeeF> Regrets: IvanH, pgearon, AndyS
13:48:24 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-08-11
13:48:30 <LeeF> LeeF has changed the topic to: Agenda - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-08-11
Lee Feigenbaum: LeeF has changed the topic to: Agenda - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-08-11 ←
14:06:23 <LeeF> zakim, who's here?
(No events recorded for 17 minutes)
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's here? ←
14:06:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei (muted), LeeF, SteveH, AlexPassant, john-l, AxelPolleres, kjetilk (muted), Orri, LukeWM, bglimm, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), SimonS, Prateek, iv_an_ru, EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see kasei (muted), LeeF, SteveH, AlexPassant, john-l, AxelPolleres, kjetilk (muted), Orri, LukeWM, bglimm, Chimezie_Ogbuji (muted), SimonS, Prateek, iv_an_ru, EricP ←
14:06:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see Prateek, chimezie, bglimm, SimonS, KjetilK, Zakim, RRSAgent, LukeWM, AxelPolleres, SteveH, LeeF, karl, john-l, iv_an_ru, kjetil, AlexPassant, trackbot, kasei, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Prateek, chimezie, bglimm, SimonS, KjetilK, Zakim, RRSAgent, LukeWM, AxelPolleres, SteveH, LeeF, karl, john-l, iv_an_ru, kjetil, AlexPassant, trackbot, kasei, ericP ←
14:07:00 <SimonS> LeeF: Topics for today are Aggregate design and discovering service descriptions
Lee Feigenbaum: Topics for today are Aggregate design and discovering service descriptions ←
14:07:23 <LeeF> topic: admin
14:07:30 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-08-04
PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-08-04 ←
14:07:53 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:08:07 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-08-04
RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-08-04 ←
14:08:27 <LeeF> Next meeting: 2009-08-18 @ 15:00 BST / 10:00 EDT, SimonKJ to scribe
Lee Feigenbaum: Next meeting: 2009-08-18 @ 15:00 BST / 10:00 EDT, SimonKJ to scribe ←
14:08:34 <bglimm> Next week I am on holiday
Birte Glimm: Next week I am on holiday ←
14:08:41 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Vacation_List
Lee Feigenbaum: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Vacation_List ←
14:08:51 <LeeF> regrets next week: bglimm, orri
Lee Feigenbaum: regrets next week: bglimm, orri ←
14:09:42 <LeeF> wiki page for next F2F http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2
Lee Feigenbaum: wiki page for next F2F http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2 ←
14:10:08 <SimonS> LeeF: F2F 1st week of November in Santa Clara.
Lee Feigenbaum: F2F 1st week of November in Santa Clara. ←
14:10:09 <SteveH> $50/day
Steve Harris: $50/day ←
14:10:52 <SimonS> ... Please indicate your attendance on the Wiki
... Please indicate your attendance on the Wiki ←
14:11:10 <chimezie> Zakim, unmute me
Chime Ogbuji: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:11:10 <Zakim> Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Chimezie_Ogbuji should no longer be muted ←
14:11:29 <KjetilK> q+
Kjetil Kjernsmo: q+ ←
14:11:29 <chimezie> Good question, I don't know off head (will need to chew on that).
Chime Ogbuji: Good question, I don't know off head (will need to chew on that). ←
14:11:37 <chimezie> whoops
Chime Ogbuji: whoops ←
14:11:50 <SimonS> LeeF: SPARQL group meeting Monday and Tuesday.
Lee Feigenbaum: SPARQL group meeting Monday and Tuesday. ←
14:12:06 <KjetilK> ack me
Kjetil Kjernsmo: ack me ←
14:12:12 <LeeF> ack kjetilk
Lee Feigenbaum: ack kjetilk ←
14:12:31 <SimonS> KjetilK: how about a split meeting with video conferencing?
Kjetil Kjernsmo: how about a split meeting with video conferencing? ←
14:12:36 <bglimm> +1 to KjetilK
Birte Glimm: +1 to KjetilK ←
14:12:39 <ericP> q+ to talk about challenges
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to talk about challenges ←
14:12:44 <ericP> q-
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q- ←
14:12:53 <ericP> q+ to talk about tech challenges re: vid conf
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to talk about tech challenges re: vid conf ←
14:13:05 <SimonS> LeeF: might be possible, but huge time difference, European side needs to host night owls.
Lee Feigenbaum: might be possible, but huge time difference, European side needs to host night owls. ←
14:13:36 <bglimm> I would fly just for the 2 days and the jet-lag would kill me, I rather stay up late here
Birte Glimm: I would fly just for the 2 days and the jet-lag would kill me, I rather stay up late here ←
14:13:45 <KjetilK> Zakim, mute me
Kjetil Kjernsmo: Zakim, mute me ←
14:13:45 <Zakim> kjetilk should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kjetilk should now be muted ←
14:13:53 <bglimm> I could probably organize some video conferencing here
Birte Glimm: I could probably organize some video conferencing here ←
14:14:47 <SimonS> EricP: point of the meeting also is to interact with other groups, which means we need video conferencing on site, which is prohibitively expensive.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: point of the meeting also is to interact with other groups, which means we need video conferencing on site, which is prohibitively expensive. ←
14:15:05 <SimonS> LeeF: Unlikely that we will have video conferencing.
Lee Feigenbaum: Unlikely that we will have video conferencing. ←
14:15:19 <SimonS> ... phone will be available, though.
... phone will be available, though. ←
14:15:57 <SteveH> can we chivvy people to say whether they're going or not?
Steve Harris: can we chivvy people to say whether they're going or not? ←
14:16:03 <SteveH> I have to decide soon
Steve Harris: I have to decide soon ←
14:16:09 <iv_an_ru> Which Ivan?
Ivan Mikhailov: Which Ivan? ←
14:16:13 <ericP> nothing new from HCLS or XQuery
Eric Prud'hommeaux: nothing new from HCLS or XQuery ←
14:16:15 <SimonS> topic: Liaisons
14:17:01 <SimonS> Orri: nothing new from RDB2RDF
Orri Erling: nothing new from RDB2RDF ←
14:17:14 <AxelPolleres> no news from RIF (teleconfs irregular, there is one today, so I will know more next week)
Axel Polleres: no news from RIF (teleconfs irregular, there is one today, so I will know more next week) ←
14:17:35 <SimonS> Orri: talk about it at the F2F.
Orri Erling: talk about it at the F2F. ←
14:17:42 <SimonS> topic: actions
14:17:39 <LeeF> open actions - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open
Lee Feigenbaum: open actions - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open ←
14:17:52 <LeeF> trackbot, close ACTION-66
Lee Feigenbaum: trackbot, close ACTION-66 ←
14:17:52 <trackbot> ACTION-66 Draft aggregates closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-66 Draft aggregates closed ←
14:20:09 <AxelPolleres> 71 is done from my side in the sense that rif and rdb2rdf are informed.
Axel Polleres: 71 is done from my side in the sense that rif and rdb2rdf are informed. ←
14:20:07 <LeeF> topic: Aggregates
14:20:24 <LeeF> draft of aggregate design at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:Aggregate
Lee Feigenbaum: draft of aggregate design at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:Aggregate ←
14:21:29 <SimonS> chimezie: First draft, some issues regarding sets vs multi-sets
Chime Ogbuji: First draft, some issues regarding sets vs multi-sets ←
14:21:39 <SimonS> ... do we need specific restrictions?
... do we need specific restrictions? ←
14:21:48 <SimonS> ... how to deal with DISTINCT?
... how to deal with DISTINCT? ←
14:21:55 <LeeF> open issues at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:Aggregate#Status
Lee Feigenbaum: open issues at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:Aggregate#Status ←
14:22:22 <SimonS> ... seems we want to have variables associated with result of aggregates, so we always need AS
... seems we want to have variables associated with result of aggregates, so we always need AS ←
14:22:44 <SimonS> ... tried to describe algebra extension.
... tried to describe algebra extension. ←
14:23:20 <SimonS> ... Start with groups function
... Start with groups function ←
14:23:56 <SimonS> ... starting with grouped variables.
... starting with grouped variables. ←
14:24:39 <SimonS> ... function partitions takes solution set and extracts unique n-tuples, which are partitions of the solution set
... function partitions takes solution set and extracts unique n-tuples, which are partitions of the solution set ←
14:24:51 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask about whether bnodes should be considered nasty or not
Axel Polleres: q+ to ask about whether bnodes should be considered nasty or not ←
14:25:15 <LeeF> ack ericp
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericp ←
14:25:16 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to talk about tech challenges re: vid conf
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to talk about tech challenges re: vid conf ←
14:25:20 <SimonS> ... Aggregation then computes the actual aggregate.
... Aggregation then computes the actual aggregate. ←
14:25:29 <SimonS> ... now need test cases
... now need test cases ←
14:26:21 <AxelPolleres> ack me
Axel Polleres: ack me ←
14:26:21 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about whether bnodes should be considered nasty or not
Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about whether bnodes should be considered nasty or not ←
14:26:59 <ericP> q+ to propose we stay with a graph semantics
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to propose we stay with a graph semantics ←
14:27:02 <SimonS> AxelPolleres: Are BNodes in the solution set an issue? e.g. count is difficult, if BNodes are treated as existentials
Axel Polleres: Are BNodes in the solution set an issue? e.g. count is difficult, if BNodes are treated as existentials ←
14:27:13 <SimonS> ... most implementations treat them as constants, though.
... most implementations treat them as constants, though. ←
14:27:56 <bglimm> I agrre in that blank nodes in our reasoner (OWL direct semantics) are not the same as constants
Birte Glimm: I agrre in that blank nodes in our reasoner (OWL direct semantics) are not the same as constants ←
14:28:00 <SimonS> Orri: We treat them as constants, sometimes owl:sameAs semantics is applied
Orri Erling: We treat them as constants, sometimes owl:sameAs semantics is applied ←
14:28:06 <LeeF> ack ericP
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericP ←
14:28:06 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose we stay with a graph semantics
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to propose we stay with a graph semantics ←
14:28:26 <SimonS> EricP: Language should stay a graph based language.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Language should stay a graph based language. ←
14:28:31 <AxelPolleres> similar with "!=" which is currently "not known to be equal"
Axel Polleres: similar with "!=" which is currently "not known to be equal" ←
14:29:14 <SimonS> LeeF: treat as in equals in filters
Lee Feigenbaum: treat as in equals in filters ←
14:29:25 <SimonS> ... might need to look at this again for entailment regimes.
... might need to look at this again for entailment regimes. ←
14:29:38 <LeeF> ISSUE: How do other entailment regimes interact with aggregate grouping vis a vis blank nodes?
ISSUE: How do other entailment regimes interact with aggregate grouping vis a vis blank nodes? ←
14:29:38 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-34 - How do other entailment regimes interact with aggregate grouping vis a vis blank nodes? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/34/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-34 - How do other entailment regimes interact with aggregate grouping vis a vis blank nodes? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/34/edit . ←
14:30:25 <SimonS> Orri: Guess, you can do expressions of aggregates
Orri Erling: Guess, you can do expressions of aggregates ←
14:31:46 <LeeF> for the record, extensibility of aggregate functions is an open issue http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/15
Lee Feigenbaum: for the record, extensibility of aggregate functions is an open issue http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/15 ←
14:31:48 <SimonS> ... are user defined aggregates in scope, but we might need syntax restrictions?
... are user defined aggregates in scope, but we might need syntax restrictions? ←
14:32:18 <SimonS> LeeF: we already have issue for extensions in aggregate functions
Lee Feigenbaum: we already have issue for extensions in aggregate functions ←
14:32:22 <ericP> am fiddling with grammar (has S/R errors) -- http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/SPARQL_Aggregate?lang=perl
Eric Prud'hommeaux: am fiddling with grammar (has S/R errors) -- http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/SPARQL_Aggregate?lang=perl ←
14:32:22 <Zakim> -SimonS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SimonS ←
14:32:59 <Zakim> +??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30 ←
14:33:08 <SimonS> Zakim, ??P30 is me
Zakim, ??P30 is me ←
14:33:08 <Zakim> +SimonS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SimonS; got it ←
14:33:46 <LeeF> LeeF: can aggregate functions take multiple arguments?
Lee Feigenbaum: can aggregate functions take multiple arguments? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:34:00 <LeeF> Chimezie: As long as all variables are part of gorup keys, should be ok, not sure if SQL aggregate functions do this at all
Chime Ogbuji: As long as all variables are part of gorup keys, should be ok, not sure if SQL aggregate functions do this at all [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:34:05 <LeeF> Orri: there are a few like diverse_regression
Orri Erling: there are a few like diverse_regression [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:34:37 <ericP> ok, no S/Rs in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker?name=SPARQL_Aggregate&replace=1&lang=perl
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ok, no S/Rs in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker?name=SPARQL_Aggregate&replace=1&lang=perl ←
14:35:11 <SimonS> chimezie; issues with multi sets. Do not require uniqueness. however, Aggregates do for partitioning.
chimezie; issues with multi sets. Do not require uniqueness. however, Aggregates do for partitioning. ←
14:35:49 <SimonS> EricP: Algebra does not have ordering, but aggregates need them. Current algebra should work.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Algebra does not have ordering, but aggregates need them. Current algebra should work. ←
14:35:58 <SimonS> Orri: Why do aggregates require ordering?
Orri Erling: Why do aggregates require ordering? ←
14:36:09 <SimonS> EricP: Not always, but might make sense.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Not always, but might make sense. ←
14:36:28 <chimezie> SteveH did have an example on the SubSelect design wiki asking about ordering and aggregation (working together)
Chime Ogbuji: SteveH did have an example on the SubSelect design wiki asking about ordering and aggregation (working together) ←
14:36:35 <SimonS> Orri: For user defined aggregates we have a flag for that, but usually it is not neccessary.
Orri Erling: For user defined aggregates we have a flag for that, but usually it is not neccessary. ←
14:36:58 <SimonS> ... should not be an issue, if we do not specify extension syntax
... should not be an issue, if we do not specify extension syntax ←
14:37:18 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:37:35 <SimonS> iv_an_ru: also benefits for parallelization then.
Ivan Mikhailov: also benefits for parallelization then. ←
14:37:51 <chimezie> Zakim, who is here?
Chime Ogbuji: Zakim, who is here? ←
14:37:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see kasei (muted), LeeF, SteveH, AlexPassant, john-l, AxelPolleres, kjetilk (muted), Orri, LukeWM, bglimm, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Prateek, iv_an_ru, EricP, SimonS
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see kasei (muted), LeeF, SteveH, AlexPassant, john-l, AxelPolleres, kjetilk (muted), Orri, LukeWM, bglimm, Chimezie_Ogbuji, Prateek, iv_an_ru, EricP, SimonS ←
14:37:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see Prateek, chimezie, bglimm, SimonS, KjetilK, Zakim, RRSAgent, LukeWM, AxelPolleres, SteveH, LeeF, karl, john-l, iv_an_ru, kjetil, AlexPassant, trackbot, kasei, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Prateek, chimezie, bglimm, SimonS, KjetilK, Zakim, RRSAgent, LukeWM, AxelPolleres, SteveH, LeeF, karl, john-l, iv_an_ru, kjetil, AlexPassant, trackbot, kasei, ericP ←
14:38:20 <SimonS> LeeF: do we need test case, that needs ordering?
Lee Feigenbaum: do we need test case, that needs ordering? ←
14:38:30 <SimonS> EricP: same as for SubSelect.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: same as for SubSelect. ←
14:38:48 <SimonS> LeeF: Last week we had consensus to discard ordering for subqueries.
Lee Feigenbaum: Last week we had consensus to discard ordering for subqueries. ←
14:39:12 <SimonS> Orri: ORDER BY allowed?
Orri Erling: ORDER BY allowed? ←
14:39:37 <SimonS> LeeF: yes, needed for slicing for example, but when combined with parent query, order is lost.
Lee Feigenbaum: yes, needed for slicing for example, but when combined with parent query, order is lost. ←
14:40:07 <SimonS> LeeF: what specific aggregate functions to include?
Lee Feigenbaum: what specific aggregate functions to include? ←
14:40:10 <AxelPolleres> any slicing in subqueries potentially introduces non-determinism, but well, I guess that was discussed?
Axel Polleres: any slicing in subqueries potentially introduces non-determinism, but well, I guess that was discussed? ←
14:40:17 <SimonS> ... discuss tios on the mailing list.
... discuss tios on the mailing list. ←
14:40:19 <ericP> chimezie, do you know of a grammar proposal for SELECT ?foo AS ?bar which i could inject tinot the SPARQL_Aggregate grammar?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: chimezie, do you know of a grammar proposal for SELECT ?foo AS ?bar which i could inject tinot the SPARQL_Aggregate grammar? ←
14:40:46 <SimonS> LeeF: How to apply REDUCED / DISTINCT? Afterwards?
Lee Feigenbaum: How to apply REDUCED / DISTINCT? Afterwards? ←
14:41:04 <SimonS> chimezie: if done afterwards, everything should be fine.
Chime Ogbuji: if done afterwards, everything should be fine. ←
14:41:05 <ericP> ahh, it was in your proposal
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ahh, it was in your proposal ←
14:41:14 <SimonS> Orri: grouped columns are distinct anyway.
Orri Erling: grouped columns are distinct anyway. ←
14:42:01 <SimonS> Orri: Can we have DISTINCT in aggregate expressions?
Orri Erling: Can we have DISTINCT in aggregate expressions? ←
14:42:16 <SimonS> ... e.g. SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)
... e.g. SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X) ←
14:42:33 <LeeF> ISSUE: Can aggregate functions take DISTINCT as an argument a la SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)?
ISSUE: Can aggregate functions take DISTINCT as an argument a la SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)? ←
14:42:33 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-35 - Can aggregate functions take DISTINCT as an argument a la SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/35/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-35 - Can aggregate functions take DISTINCT as an argument a la SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?X)? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/35/edit . ←
14:42:55 <LukeWM> q+ to ask about HAVING
Luke Wilson-Mawer: q+ to ask about HAVING ←
14:43:13 <LeeF> ack LukeWM
Lee Feigenbaum: ack LukeWM ←
14:43:13 <Zakim> LukeWM, you wanted to ask about HAVING
Zakim IRC Bot: LukeWM, you wanted to ask about HAVING ←
14:43:34 <SimonS> LukeWM: does HAVING cause issues?
Luke Wilson-Mawer: does HAVING cause issues? ←
14:43:43 <SimonS> Orri: HAVING is save.
Orri Erling: HAVING is save. ←
14:44:02 <SimonS> ... can be done in nested query.
... can be done in nested query. ←
14:44:06 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:44:43 <kasei> we had talked earlier about using FILTER instead of HAVING (not introducing new terms for roughly the same thing)
Greg Williams: we had talked earlier about using FILTER instead of HAVING (not introducing new terms for roughly the same thing) ←
14:44:53 <SteveH> yes, reusing FILTER would makesense
Steve Harris: yes, reusing FILTER would makesense ←
14:45:06 <SimonS> chimezie: should be easy to add to the proposal for completeness' sake.
Chime Ogbuji: should be easy to add to the proposal for completeness' sake. ←
14:45:46 <LeeF> ACTION: Chimezie to continue forward with aggregates w.r.t test cases, HAVING/FILTER clause, ISSUE-35, ...
ACTION: Chimezie to continue forward with aggregates w.r.t test cases, HAVING/FILTER clause, ISSUE-35, ... ←
14:45:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Continue forward with aggregates w.r.t test cases, HAVING/FILTER clause, ISSUE-35, ... [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2009-08-18].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-79 - Continue forward with aggregates w.r.t test cases, HAVING/FILTER clause, ISSUE-35, ... [on Chimezie Ogbuji - due 2009-08-18]. ←
14:46:23 <LeeF> topic: service description
14:47:22 <LeeF> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0139.html
Lee Feigenbaum: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0139.html ←
14:47:26 <SimonS> LeeF: Most important question is discovery mechanism. We have >= 8 proposals.
Lee Feigenbaum: Most important question is discovery mechanism. We have >= 8 proposals. ←
14:48:54 <SimonS> ... drop proposal 3 - Well known location.
... drop proposal 3 - Well known location. ←
14:49:02 <SimonS> ... general agreement on this.
... general agreement on this. ←
14:49:23 <SimonS> ... drop 5 - Query as well.
... drop 5 - Query as well. ←
14:49:31 <AxelPolleres> is "DESCRIBE <.>" also meant as a suboption of Opt 4?
Axel Polleres: is "DESCRIBE <.>" also meant as a suboption of Opt 4? ←
14:49:42 <SimonS> ... EricP likes it, but noone else.
... EricP likes it, but noone else. ←
14:50:32 <SimonS> ... some objections to 6: prefer discovery via the endpoint instead of via the query.
... some objections to 6: prefer discovery via the endpoint instead of via the query. ←
14:52:07 <ericP> chimezie, http://tinyurl.com/SPARQL-sum shows that your example query works with the grammar you supplied (modulo AggregateFunc which I added)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: chimezie, http://tinyurl.com/SPARQL-sum shows that your example query works with the grammar you supplied (modulo AggregateFunc which I added) ←
14:52:16 <SimonS> ... issue with option 7 without conneg is that existing implementations might have webpages at endpoint URI
... issue with option 7 without conneg is that existing implementations might have webpages at endpoint URI ←
14:52:38 <SimonS> ... proposal 8: do get with some special operation
... proposal 8: do get with some special operation ←
14:52:43 <chimezie> ericP: thanks
Eric Prud'hommeaux: thanks [ Scribe Assist by Chime Ogbuji ] ←
14:53:00 <ericP> feel free to fiddle with the grammar
Eric Prud'hommeaux: feel free to fiddle with the grammar ←
14:53:10 <ericP> (note [Edit this grammar])
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (note [Edit this grammar]) ←
14:53:11 <SimonS> ... is anyone NOT happy with using an approach based on the endpoint rather than the query?
... is anyone NOT happy with using an approach based on the endpoint rather than the query? ←
14:53:18 <kasei> eh
Greg Williams: eh ←
14:53:56 <kasei> Zakim, unmute me
Greg Williams: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:53:56 <Zakim> kasei should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should no longer be muted ←
14:54:10 <SimonS> EricP: might be nice to be able to query endpoint descriptions, but could solve that differently.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: might be nice to be able to query endpoint descriptions, but could solve that differently. ←
14:54:46 <AxelPolleres> q+
Axel Polleres: q+ ←
14:54:47 <SimonS> kasei: favors conneg
Greg Williams: favors conneg ←
14:55:08 <LukeWM> np
Luke Wilson-Mawer: np ←
14:55:17 <kasei> Zakim, mute me
Greg Williams: Zakim, mute me ←
14:55:17 <Zakim> kasei should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: kasei should now be muted ←
14:55:21 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←
14:55:34 <SimonS> AxelPolleres: What was objection to option 4?
Axel Polleres: What was objection to option 4? ←
14:55:53 <SimonS> LeeF: restricts possible datasets and URIs
Lee Feigenbaum: restricts possible datasets and URIs ←
14:55:59 <kasei> and that describe doesn't always return the same things...
Greg Williams: and that describe doesn't always return the same things... ←
14:56:02 <ericP> q+ to ask how i find for instance, what VoID description it has in opt 4
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask how i find for instance, what VoID description it has in opt 4 ←
14:56:21 <SimonS> LeeF: same for DESCRIBE <> as it is just a shortcut
Lee Feigenbaum: same for DESCRIBE <> as it is just a shortcut ←
14:56:28 <LeeF> ack ericP
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericP ←
14:56:28 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask how i find for instance, what VoID description it has in opt 4
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask how i find for instance, what VoID description it has in opt 4 ←
14:57:12 <SteveH> you can still do FROM <endpoint> .... on stores that support it
Steve Harris: you can still do FROM <endpoint> .... on stores that support it ←
14:57:13 <SimonS> EricP: that also means optimization becomes more difficult than just serving a void description.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: that also means optimization becomes more difficult than just serving a void description. ←
14:57:39 <SimonS> Orri: You would usually ask for the whole graph once.
Orri Erling: You would usually ask for the whole graph once. ←
14:58:20 <SimonS> EricP: imagine void, void* etc, so guessing the best representation is a burden on the endpoint
Eric Prud'hommeaux: imagine void, void* etc, so guessing the best representation is a burden on the endpoint ←
14:59:36 <SimonS> Orri: don't want to do many round trips with lots of short queries. Retrieve full description once, then do postprocessing locally.
Orri Erling: don't want to do many round trips with lots of short queries. Retrieve full description once, then do postprocessing locally. ←
14:59:59 <SimonS> EricP: But we might be interested in certain aspects of the description only.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: But we might be interested in certain aspects of the description only. ←
15:00:09 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask about the relative or absolute description in the protocol based options
Axel Polleres: q+ to ask about the relative or absolute description in the protocol based options ←
15:00:22 <kasei> ericP's point, I think, supports conneg or a simple GET mechanism so that you *could* point a SPARQL query at the SD if you wanted.
Greg Williams: ericP's point, I think, supports conneg or a simple GET mechanism so that you *could* point a SPARQL query at the SD if you wanted. ←
15:00:24 <LeeF> zakim, close the queue
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, close the queue ←
15:00:24 <Zakim> ok, LeeF, the speaker queue is closed
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF, the speaker queue is closed ←
15:01:01 <SimonS> Orri: We might say in the void description that the description is queryable, and where.
Orri Erling: We might say in the void description that the description is queryable, and where. ←
15:01:24 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←
15:01:24 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about the relative or absolute description in the protocol based options
Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about the relative or absolute description in the protocol based options ←
15:02:07 <SimonS> AxelPolleres: option 1 is just about returning a link to the service description, i.e. two GETs are neccessary, while the others are one GET only.
Axel Polleres: option 1 is just about returning a link to the service description, i.e. two GETs are neccessary, while the others are one GET only. ←
15:02:13 <SimonS> LeeF: that is right.
Lee Feigenbaum: that is right. ←
15:02:32 <AxelPolleres> 2 GETs for getting to the service description seems a bit awkward to me, personally.
Axel Polleres: 2 GETs for getting to the service description seems a bit awkward to me, personally. ←
15:02:59 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Service description discovery should be based on an operation performed against a SPARQL endpoint, ruling out options 3,4,5,6 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0139.html
PROPOSED: Service description discovery should be based on an operation performed against a SPARQL endpoint, ruling out options 3,4,5,6 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0139.html ←
15:03:51 <AxelPolleres> need to get something clear: does it mean we agree that QUERYING the service description should NOT necessarily be allowed on the very endpoint?
Axel Polleres: need to get something clear: does it mean we agree that QUERYING the service description should NOT necessarily be allowed on the very endpoint? ←
15:04:02 <Zakim> -iv_an_ru
Zakim IRC Bot: -iv_an_ru ←
15:04:22 <SimonS> I'd say not required.
I'd say not required. ←
15:04:43 <SteveH> to be convinced I'd need to be shown that it works, not that it meets some usecases
Steve Harris: to be convinced I'd need to be shown that it works, not that it meets some usecases ←
15:05:03 <SimonS> EricP: Could do use cases for querying. Would that be worth while?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Could do use cases for querying. Would that be worth while? ←
15:05:13 <SteveH> you can still do FROM <endpoint> .... on stores that support it
Steve Harris: you can still do FROM <endpoint> .... on stores that support it ←
15:05:30 <SimonS> Orri: Propose to include in the endpoint based description link to the queryable version
Orri Erling: Propose to include in the endpoint based description link to the queryable version ←
15:06:18 <kasei> option 7 gives you queryability for free with a FROM clause.
Greg Williams: option 7 gives you queryability for free with a FROM clause. ←
15:07:03 <SimonS> LeeF: discussion closed, please continue on the mailing list. Continue discussion next week
Lee Feigenbaum: discussion closed, please continue on the mailing list. Continue discussion next week ←
15:07:10 <LeeF> ACTION: Orri to send a compromise proposal to the mailing list
ACTION: Orri to send a compromise proposal to the mailing list ←
15:07:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - Send a compromise proposal to the mailing list [on Orri Erling - due 2009-08-18].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-80 - Send a compromise proposal to the mailing list [on Orri Erling - due 2009-08-18]. ←
15:07:44 <Zakim> -Chimezie_Ogbuji
Zakim IRC Bot: -Chimezie_Ogbuji ←
15:07:44 <LeeF> Adjourned.
Lee Feigenbaum: Adjourned. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2009-08-11 15:24:22 UTC by 'sschenk', comments: 'Created initial version. Nice, pain-free process. :)'