None.
<LukeWM>Present: AxelPolleres, ivanherman, LeeF, kasei, bglimm, SteveH, LukeWM, SimonS, SimonKJ, EricP, Chimezie_Ogbuji, AlexPassant, OlivierCorby, Orri, Prateek
<LukeWM>Regrets: AndyS, pgearon
13:54:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/22-sparql-irc ←
13:54:57 <AxelPolleres> Regrets: Paul, Andy, Bijan
13:55:15 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, you don't need to do rrsagent & zakim by hand in the future - you can just use "trackbot, start meeting"
Lee Feigenbaum: AxelPolleres, you don't need to do rrsagent & zakim by hand in the future - you can just use "trackbot, start meeting" ←
13:56:56 <OlivierCorby> Hello, I am Olivier Corby from INRIA Sophia Antipolis, new member of the WG
Olivier Corby: Hello, I am Olivier Corby from INRIA Sophia Antipolis, new member of the WG ←
13:57:02 <AxelPolleres> ah right, but I don't need to say it again now, do I?
Axel Polleres: ah right, but I don't need to say it again now, do I? ←
13:57:21 <AxelPolleres> Welcome Olivier!
Axel Polleres: Welcome Olivier! ←
13:57:50 <LeeF> hi OlivierCorby, good to have you
Lee Feigenbaum: hi OlivierCorby, good to have you ←
13:58:05 <LeeF> AxelPolleres, right, no need to repeat it now, though trackbot does do other things like date and stuff
Lee Feigenbaum: AxelPolleres, right, no need to repeat it now, though trackbot does do other things like date and stuff ←
14:00:15 <LeeF> Chair: AxelPolleres
14:00:26 <LeeF> Meeting: 22 Sep 2009
14:02:22 <kasei> it's the same number as Olivier, but without the country code.
Greg Williams: it's the same number as Olivier, but without the country code. ←
14:02:52 <LukeWM> the agenda says duration is 90 minutes, is this true?
Luke Wilson-Mawer: the agenda says duration is 90 minutes, is this true? ←
14:02:56 <BirteGlimm> Welcome Olivier
Birte Glimm: Welcome Olivier ←
14:03:00 <LeeF> wouldn't be the first time
Lee Feigenbaum: wouldn't be the first time ←
14:03:19 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: welcome Olivier Corby to the group.
Axel Polleres: welcome Olivier Corby to the group. [ Scribe Assist by Luke Wilson-Mawer ] ←
14:03:22 <LeeF> Scribenick: LukeWM
(Scribe set to Luke Wilson-Mawer)
14:03:29 <LukeWM> thanks LeeF
thanks LeeF ←
14:03:39 <LeeF> err
Lee Feigenbaum: err ←
14:03:53 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets introduce Olivier Corby
Axel Polleres: lets introduce Olivier Corby ←
14:04:01 <ericP> s/Oliier/Olivier/
Eric Prud'hommeaux: s/Oliier/Olivier/ ←
14:04:06 <LukeWM> OlivierCorby: gives introduction
Olivier Corby: gives introduction ←
14:05:06 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: remember to rejoin the group
Axel Polleres: remember to rejoin the group ←
14:05:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: or ask your AC rep to do it. Will check this later.
Axel Polleres: or ask your AC rep to do it. Will check this later. ←
14:05:47 <LukeWM> ericP: email problems due to recharting & not complicated enough tooling.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: email problems due to recharting & not complicated enough tooling. ←
14:05:54 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15 ←
14:05:58 <LeeF> q+ to ask once more for people to fill out http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to ask once more for people to fill out http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2 ←
14:06:06 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:06:48 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED to accept http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15
Axel Polleres: PROPOSED to accept http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15 ←
14:07:01 <LukeWM> LeeF: remember to fill in F2F2 attendance.
Lee Feigenbaum: remember to fill in F2F2 attendance. ←
14:07:04 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2 F2F wiki
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F2 F2F wiki ←
14:07:11 <AxelPolleres> RESOLVED to accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15
Axel Polleres: RESOLVED to accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-09-15 ←
14:07:52 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: next scribe is bijan if he doesn't still have telephone difficulties.
Axel Polleres: next scribe is bijan if he doesn't still have telephone difficulties. ←
14:08:10 <BirteGlimm> yes
Birte Glimm: yes ←
14:08:16 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: next scribe will be Chimezie if he is there.
Axel Polleres: next scribe will be Chimezie if he is there. ←
14:08:37 <AxelPolleres> topic: liaisons
14:08:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: Liasions...
Axel Polleres: Liasions... ←
14:08:54 <ericP> q+ to mention RIF
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to mention RIF ←
14:08:55 <LeeF> congrats, OWL and OWLers!
Lee Feigenbaum: congrats, OWL and OWLers! ←
14:08:58 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: owl went to proposed recommendation today
Birte Glimm: owl went to proposed recommendation today ←
14:09:34 <LukeWM> ericP: RIF is soliciting review from Xquery because of added functions and operators
Eric Prud'hommeaux: RIF is soliciting review from Xquery because of added functions and operators ←
14:10:19 <LukeWM> ericP: we might end up needing to work with RIF
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we might end up needing to work with RIF ←
14:10:35 <LukeWM> ericP: because of collisions between our functions and operators. Perhaps a common document.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: because of collisions between our functions and operators. Perhaps a common document. ←
14:10:39 <AxelPolleres> chime, can you scribe next time?
Axel Polleres: chime, can you scribe next time? ←
14:10:50 <chimezie> sure
Chime Ogbuji: sure ←
14:11:00 <ericP> in particular, RIF F&O deal with the same atoms that we have, XSD types + URIs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: in particular, RIF F&O deal with the same atoms that we have, XSD types + URIs ←
14:11:01 <LukeWM> topic: Actions...
14:11:05 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/actions/open ←
14:11:10 <ericP> (well, IRIs in our specs)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (well, IRIs in our specs) ←
14:11:37 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: action for ericP to draft project expressions.
Axel Polleres: action for ericP to draft project expressions. ←
14:11:51 <LukeWM> ericP: that's done, but perhaps someone wants something more, otherwise, lets remove it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: that's done, but perhaps someone wants something more, otherwise, lets remove it. ←
14:12:07 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: can we just close it?
Axel Polleres: can we just close it? ←
14:12:18 <LukeWM> ericP: yes
Eric Prud'hommeaux: yes ←
14:12:35 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: investigating issue 33 & creating trac links for update issues
Axel Polleres: investigating ISSUE-33 & creating trac links for update issues ←
14:12:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: for Lee, is that done?
Axel Polleres: for Lee, is that done? ←
14:12:47 <AxelPolleres> Lee?
Axel Polleres: Lee? ←
14:13:56 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: chime, update on Aggregates issue.
Axel Polleres: chime, update on Aggregates issue. ←
14:14:18 <LukeWM> chimezie: there was something about groups, but I don't think this is part of the action.
Chime Ogbuji: there was something about groups, but I don't think this is part of the action. ←
14:14:38 <LukeWM> chimezie: leave the action open and I'll investigate.
Chime Ogbuji: leave the action open and I'll investigate. ←
14:14:52 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: leaves an action for himself open.
Axel Polleres: leaves an action for himself open. ←
14:14:56 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:15:08 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: synchronising errata with Andy?
Axel Polleres: synchronising errata with Andy? ←
14:15:16 <LukeWM> LeeF: can't close that yet.
Lee Feigenbaum: can't close that yet. ←
14:15:29 <LukeWM> LeeF: I'll go through and close the ones that need to be.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'll go through and close the ones that need to be. ←
14:16:00 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: look into xml spec for SPARQL query with Andy - action on ericP.
Axel Polleres: look into xml spec for SPARQL query with Andy - action on ericP. ←
14:16:21 <LukeWM> ericP: ported SPARQL 1.1 to xml spec & update document to xml spec.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ported SPARQL 1.1 to xml spec & update document to xml spec. ←
14:16:33 <LukeWM> ericP: I don't know if Andy is using it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't know if Andy is using it. ←
14:16:42 <LeeF> q+ to give mailing list heads up
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to give mailing list heads up ←
14:16:54 <SimonS> q+ re xmlspec
Simon Schenk: q+ re xmlspec ←
14:16:55 <LukeWM> ericP: there's no point in leaving this action open.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there's no point in leaving this action open. ←
14:17:24 <LukeWM> SimonS: a comment on XML spec.
Simon Schenk: a comment on XML spec. ←
14:17:36 <LukeWM> SimonS: can we have our own copy.
Simon Schenk: can we have our own copy. ←
14:18:15 <LukeWM> ericP: we're free to copy it, but we ought to use an existing one to ensure minimum differences.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we're free to copy it, but we ought to use an existing one to ensure minimum differences. ←
14:18:41 <LukeWM> SimonS: we have marked it up with a special class.
Simon Schenk: we have marked it up with a special class. ←
14:18:54 <LukeWM> ericP: we can just tweak the XSLT to make it all visible.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we can just tweak the XSLT to make it all visible. ←
14:19:01 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:19:08 <LeeF> ack ericP
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericP ←
14:19:11 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:19:25 <SimonS> q-
Simon Schenk: q- ←
14:19:55 <LukeWM> LeeF: there have been some hiccups with our mailing lists, and web archives haven't caught up.
Lee Feigenbaum: there have been some hiccups with our mailing lists, and web archives haven't caught up. ←
14:20:21 <LukeWM> LeeF: we're working on it, and will keep you up to date.
Lee Feigenbaum: we're working on it, and will keep you up to date. ←
14:20:47 <LukeWM> LeeF: w3c is being marked as spam by spamcop
Lee Feigenbaum: w3c is being marked as spam by spamcop ←
14:20:52 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:21:02 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: will it be fixed?
Axel Polleres: will it be fixed? ←
14:21:15 <LukeWM> LeeF: it's fixed for now but might recur.
Lee Feigenbaum: it's fixed for now but might recur. ←
14:21:58 <AxelPolleres> topic: FPWD progress - schedule
14:22:06 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets talk about where we are with the FPWD
Axel Polleres: lets talk about where we are with the FPWD ←
14:22:29 <BirteGlimm> 1st of September?
Birte Glimm: 1st of September? ←
14:22:44 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: we probably won't keep to end of september, but we should be as close as possible. I suggest the following schedule...
Axel Polleres: we probably won't keep to end of september, but we should be as close as possible. I suggest the following schedule... ←
14:22:50 <SteveH> BirteGlimm, end of sept.
Steve Harris: BirteGlimm, end of sept. ←
14:22:54 <BirteGlimm> ok
Birte Glimm: ok ←
14:22:56 <LeeF> Note that mailing list archives at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/ are now up to date
Lee Feigenbaum: Note that mailing list archives at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/ are now up to date ←
14:22:58 <LeeF> so follow along there!
Lee Feigenbaum: so follow along there! ←
14:23:10 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: first internal draft next week
Axel Polleres: first internal draft next week ←
14:23:16 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: choose reviewers today
Axel Polleres: choose reviewers today ←
14:23:23 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:23:35 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: decide to publish on October 13th
Axel Polleres: decide to publish on October 13th ←
14:24:02 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets pick the reviewers when we go through the documents.
Axel Polleres: lets pick the reviewers when we go through the documents. ←
14:24:24 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: how are we with respect to schedule, any issues?
Axel Polleres: how are we with respect to schedule, any issues? ←
14:24:29 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:24:51 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/ ←
14:25:00 <LukeWM> LeeF: can editors paste the links of the documents before discussing them.
Lee Feigenbaum: can editors paste the links of the documents before discussing them. ←
14:24:35 <LukeWM> topic: status of Sparql Query document?
14:25:55 <LukeWM> SteveH: Aggregate functions, subqueries, negation, project expressions
Steve Harris: Aggregate functions, subqueries, negation, project expressions ←
14:26:13 <LukeWM> SteveH: negation, project expressions 80 -90% complete.
Steve Harris: negation, project expressions 80 -90% complete. ←
14:26:41 <LukeWM> SteveH: requires more work on Aggregate functions and subqueries, but probably OK for review.
Steve Harris: requires more work on Aggregate functions and subqueries, but probably OK for review. ←
14:27:09 <LukeWM> SteveH: Aggregate functions and project expressions aren't complete enough yet.
Steve Harris: Aggregate functions and project expressions aren't complete enough yet. ←
14:27:33 <BirteGlimm> I would like to review it
Birte Glimm: I would like to review it ←
14:27:39 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: there will be something to review next week?
Axel Polleres: there will be something to review next week? ←
14:27:45 <LeeF> at least 2 :)
Lee Feigenbaum: at least 2 :) ←
14:27:53 <LukeWM> SteveH: yes
Steve Harris: yes ←
14:27:57 <LeeF> I'd like to review all of them, actually
Lee Feigenbaum: I'd like to review all of them, actually ←
14:28:05 <LeeF> Yes.
Lee Feigenbaum: Yes. ←
14:28:15 <LeeF> but would love 2 in addition to me ;)
Lee Feigenbaum: but would love 2 in addition to me ;) ←
14:28:25 <AxelPolleres> Reviewers for query: birte, Lee
Axel Polleres: Reviewers for query: birte, Lee ←
14:28:28 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:28:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: BirteGlimm has volunteered, and LeeF for all of them.
Axel Polleres: BirteGlimm has volunteered, and LeeF for all of them. ←
14:29:10 <SteveH> +1 to ivanherman
Steve Harris: +1 to ivanherman ←
14:29:11 <LukeWM> ivanherman: we should make it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document.
Ivan Herman: we should make it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. ←
14:29:13 <LeeF> ivanherman++ sounds like it makes sense in the status of the document
Lee Feigenbaum: ivanherman++ sounds like it makes sense in the status of the document ←
14:29:28 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: nobody disagrees
Axel Polleres: nobody disagrees ←
14:29:48 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Steve to make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document.
ACTION: Steve to make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. ←
14:29:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-92 - Make a comment making it clear that we intend to merge this content with the old document. [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29]. ←
14:30:27 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: anything urgent regarding this document? Aggregates is on agenda for next time. Is anything else needed?
Axel Polleres: anything urgent regarding this document? Aggregates is on agenda for next time. Is anything else needed? ←
14:30:39 <LukeWM> SteveH: we need to decide on the scope of the group expressions.
Steve Harris: we need to decide on the scope of the group expressions. ←
14:31:01 <LukeWM> SteveH: the algebra only allows group by variables, rather than expressions.
Steve Harris: the algebra only allows group by variables, rather than expressions. ←
14:31:04 <LeeF> ISSUE: Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions?
ISSUE: Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions? ←
14:31:04 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-41 - Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/41/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-41 - Does GROUP BY allow variables or expressions, and does it allow mutiple expressions? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/track/issues/41/edit . ←
14:31:40 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: can you summarise it on the mailing list.
Axel Polleres: can you summarise it on the mailing list. ←
14:32:05 <SteveH> ivanherman, ok, I'll look at that
Steve Harris: ivanherman, ok, I'll look at that ←
14:32:07 <LukeWM> SteveH: I'll talk to Andy first and the issue is sufficient.
Steve Harris: I'll talk to Andy first and the issue is sufficient. ←
14:32:18 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:32:22 <BirteGlimm> Do we try and get a third reviewer?
Birte Glimm: Do we try and get a third reviewer? ←
14:32:22 <ivanherman> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
14:32:43 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Steve to talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41,
ACTION: Steve to talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41, ←
14:32:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41, [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-93 - talk with AndyS on ISSUE-41, [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29]. ←
14:33:00 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: another reviewer?
Axel Polleres: another reviewer? ←
14:33:07 <LeeF> ack me
Lee Feigenbaum: ack me ←
14:33:38 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: I'll be a reviewer, but next time I'll pick a victim.
Axel Polleres: I'll be a reviewer, but next time I'll pick a victim. ←
14:33:47 <AxelPolleres> Reviewers for SPARQL/Query: Axel, Lee, Birte (in reverse order of volunteering)
Axel Polleres: Reviewers for SPARQL/Query: Axel, Lee, Birte (in reverse order of volunteering) ←
14:34:09 <LukeWM> LeeF: it's not so important now, just needs to be presentable. Near the end we will need more serious reviews.
Lee Feigenbaum: it's not so important now, just needs to be presentable. Near the end we will need more serious reviews. ←
14:34:26 <AxelPolleres> topic: status of SPARQL/Update-1.0
14:34:26 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.0/ ←
14:34:30 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:34:42 <SteveH> I see a lot of things that looks like XML errors
Steve Harris: I see a lot of things that looks like XML errors ←
14:34:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: SimonS, can you summarize the update document.
Axel Polleres: SimonS, can you summarize the update document. ←
14:35:01 <LukeWM> SimonS: nearly done, good enough for review.
Simon Schenk: nearly done, good enough for review. ←
14:35:15 <LukeWM> SimonS: ericP is on the XML issues, so they should be fixed soon.
Simon Schenk: ericP is on the XML issues, so they should be fixed soon. ←
14:36:00 <LukeWM> ericP: we'll end up with a better stylesheet & dtd if you bear with me.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we'll end up with a better stylesheet & dtd if you bear with me. ←
14:36:03 <SteveH> q+ to ask about grammar syntax
Steve Harris: q+ to ask about grammar syntax ←
14:36:30 <LukeWM> ericP: I want to work out the minimal diff between a live version of the stylesheet and ours first.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I want to work out the minimal diff between a live version of the stylesheet and ours first. ←
14:37:04 <LukeWM> SimonS: we proposed to have a separate grammar document with an overlapping part but didn't have much response.
Simon Schenk: we proposed to have a separate grammar document with an overlapping part but didn't have much response. ←
14:37:23 <LukeWM> SimonS: Andy's response wasn't pro or con, so would like other opinions.
Simon Schenk: Andy's response wasn't pro or con, so would like other opinions. ←
14:37:29 <BirteGlimm> What does it mean to have an overlapping part?
Birte Glimm: What does it mean to have an overlapping part? ←
14:37:43 <SteveH> BirteGlimm, the common parts of the grammar
Steve Harris: BirteGlimm, the common parts of the grammar ←
14:37:59 <LukeWM> SimonS: there are some issues but they don't affect going to FPWD.
Simon Schenk: there are some issues but they don't affect going to FPWD. ←
14:38:27 <BirteGlimm> Hm, so you can identify what parts apply only to update and which parts apply also to standard SPARQL?
Birte Glimm: Hm, so you can identify what parts apply only to update and which parts apply also to standard SPARQL? ←
14:38:32 <AxelPolleres> the person typing, pls mute!
Axel Polleres: the person typing, pls mute! ←
14:38:33 <LukeWM> SteveH: where did the html that does the grammar come from.
Steve Harris: where did the html that does the grammar come from. ←
14:39:01 <LukeWM> ericP: pasted grammar into Yakker??? and got that to produce the HTML.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: pasted grammar into Yakker??? and got that to produce the HTML. ←
14:39:08 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:39:22 <AxelPolleres> ack SteveH
Axel Polleres: ack SteveH ←
14:39:31 <LukeWM> SteveH: HTML in update document looks to be just vanilla HTML.
Steve Harris: HTML in update document looks to be just vanilla HTML. ←
14:41:10 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets get back to this when we talk about the shared document.
Axel Polleres: lets get back to this when we talk about the shared document. ←
14:41:36 <LukeWM> ivanherman: it would be good if we are consistent in the order of the sections, and the update document is different.
Ivan Herman: it would be good if we are consistent in the order of the sections, and the update document is different. ←
14:41:51 <LukeWM> ivanherman: e.g. it has the issues starting at the beginning. Perhaps we should reorder.
Ivan Herman: e.g. it has the issues starting at the beginning. Perhaps we should reorder. ←
14:41:56 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: Simon, can it be done?
Axel Polleres: Simon, can it be done? ←
14:42:07 <LukeWM> SimonS: yes, any preference?
Simon Schenk: yes, any preference? ←
14:42:27 <LukeWM> ivanherman: we should be as close to Steve's document in structure.
Ivan Herman: we should be as close to Steve's document in structure. ←
14:42:48 <LukeWM> SteveH: we had an item on the TODO list to reorder the original SPARQL document to make it easier to read.
Steve Harris: we had an item on the TODO list to reorder the original SPARQL document to make it easier to read. ←
14:43:09 <LukeWM> ivanherman: my point is that update & query documents should follow the same structure.
Ivan Herman: my point is that update & query documents should follow the same structure. ←
14:43:13 <LukeWM> SteveH: agreed.
Steve Harris: agreed. ←
14:43:31 <LukeWM> ivanherman: can we follow the query document.
Ivan Herman: can we follow the query document. ←
14:43:34 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: SimonS to agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure .
ACTION: SimonS to agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure . ←
14:43:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure . [on Simon Schenk - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-94 - Agree with SteveH to order sections to reflect better similar structure . [on Simon Schenk - due 2009-09-29]. ←
14:45:23 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: there are overlaps between the grammars, so to avoid redundancy, we should have a separate grammar document with the intersection between the grammars.
Axel Polleres: there are overlaps between the grammars, so to avoid redundancy, we should have a separate grammar document with the intersection between the grammars. ←
14:45:27 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
14:45:44 <ericP> q- ivanherman
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q- ivanherman ←
14:46:05 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: or we can just link from the query document to the update document
Axel Polleres: or we can just link from the query document to the update document ←
14:46:24 <LukeWM> SteveH: describing update in terms of query results in a double-headed grammar.
Steve Harris: describing update in terms of query results in a double-headed grammar. ←
14:46:29 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:46:35 <SteveH> ack me
Steve Harris: ack me ←
14:46:49 <LukeWM> ericP, I didn't catch your point.
ericP, I didn't catch your point. ←
14:47:04 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: if you link, it still results in 2 grammars.
Axel Polleres: if you link, it still results in 2 grammars. ←
14:47:14 <LukeWM> SteveH: in all cases you end up with 2 grammars.
Steve Harris: in all cases you end up with 2 grammars. ←
14:48:04 <LukeWM> ericP: conceptually, it's nice if they both reference their intersection. But from a tool perspective, it's easier to have one big piece.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: conceptually, it's nice if they both reference their intersection. But from a tool perspective, it's easier to have one big piece. ←
14:48:21 <LukeWM> SteveH: ericP's master grammar with annotations for each spec is a good idea.
Steve Harris: ericP's master grammar with annotations for each spec is a good idea. ←
14:49:05 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: Can we do the joint grammar document in time? What do the editor's say, is it doable?
Axel Polleres: Can we do the joint grammar document in time? What do the editor's say, is it doable? ←
14:49:32 <LukeWM> SteveH: we aren't merging grammars.
Steve Harris: we aren't merging grammars. ←
14:49:48 <AxelPolleres> non need to decide now.
Axel Polleres: non need to decide now. ←
14:49:52 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: do we need to decide yet?
Axel Polleres: do we need to decide yet? ←
14:50:06 <SteveH> I'll review
Steve Harris: I'll review ←
14:50:13 <LukeWM> SteveH: no, differences can be describe in terms of 1.0 grammar.
Steve Harris: no, differences can be describe in terms of 1.0 grammar. ←
14:50:28 <LukeWM> I can do it too
I can do it too ←
14:50:41 <LeeF> Not concerned with that
Lee Feigenbaum: Not concerned with that ←
14:50:53 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for SPARQL/Update: Steve, Luke, Lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for SPARQL/Update: Steve, Luke, Lee ←
14:51:19 <LukeWM> topic: status of RESTful update document
14:51:50 <LukeWM> chimezie: nothing to show, just trying to collect consensus, hopefully next week there'll be something worth reviewing.
Chime Ogbuji: nothing to show, just trying to collect consensus, hopefully next week there'll be something worth reviewing. ←
14:52:15 <AxelPolleres> update-protocol-1.0? RESTful-update-1.0?
Axel Polleres: update-protocol-1.0? RESTful-update-1.0? ←
14:52:18 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: what is the short name for the document?
Axel Polleres: what is the short name for the document? ←
14:52:18 <LeeF> chimezie, is there a URL for where the draft will go yet?
Lee Feigenbaum: chimezie, is there a URL for where the draft will go yet? ←
14:52:34 <SteveH> http-update?
Steve Harris: http-update? ←
14:52:35 <LukeWM> chimezie: lets not use REST in the name, something like RDF Update.
Chime Ogbuji: lets not use REST in the name, something like RDF Update. ←
14:52:39 <SteveH> +1 to not using REST
Steve Harris: +1 to not using REST ←
14:52:41 <AxelPolleres> RDF-update? http-update?
Axel Polleres: RDF-update? http-update? ←
14:53:00 <AlexPassant> +1 for not using REST but using HTTP in the title
Alex Passant: +1 for not using REST but using HTTP in the title ←
14:53:03 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: any preferences, RDF-update or http-update?
Axel Polleres: any preferences, RDF-update or http-update? ←
14:53:14 <BirteGlimm> +1 to http-update
Birte Glimm: +1 to http-update ←
14:53:21 <ivanherman> sparql-http-update?
Ivan Herman: sparql-http-update? ←
14:53:27 <LukeWM> LeeF: we just need to distinguish it from SPARQL/update sufficiently.
Lee Feigenbaum: we just need to distinguish it from SPARQL/update sufficiently. ←
14:53:31 <AxelPolleres> +1 to http-update
Axel Polleres: +1 to http-update ←
14:53:42 <chimezie> +1 http-rdf-update or http-update
Chime Ogbuji: +1 http-rdf-update or http-update ←
14:53:47 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: lets have a quick straw poll.
Axel Polleres: lets have a quick straw poll. ←
14:53:58 <LukeWM> +1 to rdf-http-update
+1 to rdf-http-update ←
14:54:04 <SteveH> +1 http-rdf-update or http-update
Steve Harris: +1 http-rdf-update or http-update ←
14:54:09 <SimonS> +1 http-rdf-update
Simon Schenk: +1 http-rdf-update ←
14:54:12 <ivanherman> 'http-update' might not say that this is related to rdf or sparql
Ivan Herman: 'http-update' might not say that this is related to rdf or sparql ←
14:54:16 <AlexPassant> +1 http-rdf-update
Alex Passant: +1 http-rdf-update ←
14:54:17 <kasei> +1 http-rdf-update
Greg Williams: +1 http-rdf-update ←
14:54:19 <LeeF> yeah, http-update doesn't make any sense to me :)
Lee Feigenbaum: yeah, http-update doesn't make any sense to me :) ←
14:54:25 <ivanherman> rdf-http-update or http-rdf-update:-)
Ivan Herman: rdf-http-update or http-rdf-update:-) ←
14:54:32 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: volunteers for reviewing
Axel Polleres: volunteers for reviewing ←
14:54:41 <BirteGlimm> true, I am happy with http-rdf-update or http-sparql-update
Birte Glimm: true, I am happy with http-rdf-update or http-sparql-update ←
14:54:48 <LukeWM> SimonKJ: I can review it
Simon Johnston: I can review it ←
14:54:53 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for http-update: simonKJ, simonS, Lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for http-update: simonKJ, simonS, Lee ←
14:54:55 <LukeWM> SimonS: me too
Simon Schenk: me too ←
14:55:13 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: I'll put Lee too.
Axel Polleres: I'll put Lee too. ←
14:55:37 <AxelPolleres> topic: status of protocol-1.1 document?
14:56:04 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: SimonKJ, can you report on the protocol document
Axel Polleres: SimonKJ, can you report on the protocol document ←
14:56:42 <LukeWM> SimonKJ: I need to send CVS keys to ericP, but haven't got going with it.
Simon Johnston: I need to send CVS keys to ericP, but haven't got going with it. ←
14:56:44 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:57:02 <LukeWM> SimonKJ: I hope I can get something for next week if I can get CVS sorted today.
Simon Johnston: I hope I can get something for next week if I can get CVS sorted today. ←
14:57:20 <LukeWM> LeeF: We can talk and perhaps do something jointly.
Lee Feigenbaum: We can talk and perhaps do something jointly. ←
14:57:30 <BirteGlimm> I might need CVS access as well since at the moment we edit in the WebOnt wiki
Birte Glimm: I might need CVS access as well since at the moment we edit in the WebOnt wiki ←
14:57:39 <LukeWM> ivanherman: there is a practical reason why that document should be published at the same time.
Ivan Herman: there is a practical reason why that document should be published at the same time. ←
14:58:03 <AxelPolleres> birte ,we'll get to that, agreed.
Axel Polleres: birte ,we'll get to that, agreed. ←
14:58:34 <LukeWM> ivanherman: if we do it now, it will be easier for companies like HP or Oracle
Ivan Herman: if we do it now, it will be easier for companies like HP or Oracle ←
14:58:52 <ivanherman> s/did/did not/
Ivan Herman: s/did/did not/ ←
14:59:01 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: reviewers?
Axel Polleres: reviewers? ←
14:59:03 <AlexPassant> ill do it
Alex Passant: ill do it ←
14:59:27 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for protocol-1.1: Axel Alex
Axel Polleres: reviewers for protocol-1.1: Axel Alex ←
14:59:49 <LukeWM> topic: status of service description document
14:59:57 <AxelPolleres> service-description-1.0?
Axel Polleres: service-description-1.0? ←
15:00:28 <ivanherman> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:00:29 <LeeF> sparql-service-description ?
Lee Feigenbaum: sparql-service-description ? ←
15:00:31 <LukeWM> kasei: discovery stuff is settled, but vocabulary still needs to be sorted
Greg Williams: discovery stuff is settled, but vocabulary still needs to be sorted ←
15:00:39 <LukeWM> kasei, that was you speaking wasn't it?
kasei, that was you speaking wasn't it? ←
15:01:02 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: short name?
Axel Polleres: short name? ←
15:01:11 <kasei> LukeWM, yes
Greg Williams: LukeWM, yes ←
15:01:11 <LukeWM> ivanherman: all short names should start the same.
Ivan Herman: all short names should start the same. ←
15:01:12 <AxelPolleres> All short names should start with sparql- or rdf-
Axel Polleres: All short names should start with sparql- or rdf- ←
15:01:16 <LukeWM> cool
cool ←
15:01:37 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: will it be possible to review next week.
Axel Polleres: will it be possible to review next week. ←
15:02:03 <LukeWM> kasei: I don't have anything yet, but will try for something next week. It isn't as deep in scope as some of the others.
Greg Williams: I don't have anything yet, but will try for something next week. It isn't as deep in scope as some of the others. ←
15:02:15 <LukeWM> I can review it when it's done.
I can review it when it's done. ←
15:02:17 <SimonKJ> I'll do that one as well
Simon Johnston: I'll do that one as well ←
15:02:19 <ericP> ivanherman, will you be able to cover the rest of this call? i have a conflict starting now.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ivanherman, will you be able to cover the rest of this call? i have a conflict starting now. ←
15:02:46 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for service-descriptions: SimonK, Axel, Lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for service-descriptions: SimonK, Axel, Lee ←
15:03:23 <AxelPolleres> topic: status of R&R document
15:03:23 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/features/ ←
15:03:29 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: anything with respect to update for F & R ? Will there be a new version, will things be added for time allowed features.
Axel Polleres: anything with respect to update for F & R ? Will there be a new version, will things be added for time allowed features. ←
15:03:50 <LukeWM> LeeF: I'm keen to hear about the status of entailment. Lets talk about this later.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'm keen to hear about the status of entailment. Lets talk about this later. ←
15:05:08 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for F&R: chime, Lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for F&R: chime, Lee ←
15:05:25 <BirteGlimm> http://wiki.webont.org/page/SPARQL/OWL
Birte Glimm: http://wiki.webont.org/page/SPARQL/OWL ←
15:05:51 <LukeWM> AlexPassant, I didn't catch what you said about the F& R status, could you put it into IRC please.
AlexPassant, I didn't catch what you said about the F& R status, could you put it into IRC please. ←
15:06:11 <AlexPassant> AlexPassant: Will update FR with more content on allowed feature by next week
Alex Passant: Will update FR with more content on allowed feature by next week [ Scribe Assist by Alex Passant ] ←
15:06:24 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: OWL - there's still a lot of work around what is decidable and not, but should have a decent version next week.
Birte Glimm: OWL - there's still a lot of work around what is decidable and not, but should have a decent version next week. ←
15:06:33 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: just sparql-owl?
Axel Polleres: just sparql-owl? ←
15:07:11 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: the basic difference is just what queries are allowed, so the same restrictions apply as OWL2.
Birte Glimm: the basic difference is just what queries are allowed, so the same restrictions apply as OWL2. ←
15:07:36 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: it isn't worth doing SPARQL RDFS because you don't gain much.
Birte Glimm: it isn't worth doing SPARQL RDFS because you don't gain much. ←
15:07:47 <LeeF> let's try one or two out first :
Lee Feigenbaum: let's try one or two out first : ←
15:07:48 <LeeF> :)
Lee Feigenbaum: :) ←
15:07:50 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: is there any RIF in there?
Axel Polleres: is there any RIF in there? ←
15:08:00 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: no
Birte Glimm: no ←
15:08:08 <LeeF> q+ to ask how the extension mechanism seems
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to ask how the extension mechanism seems ←
15:08:11 <LeeF> ack ivanherman
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivanherman ←
15:08:38 <LukeWM> LeeF: have you done enough to work out whether the structure of the extension method is enough.
Lee Feigenbaum: have you done enough to work out whether the structure of the extension method is enough. ←
15:08:43 <LukeWM> LeeF: ?
Lee Feigenbaum: ? ←
15:08:55 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: yes, I think it will work.
Birte Glimm: yes, I think it will work. ←
15:09:01 <BirteGlimm> ?x rdf:type rdf:XMLLiteral
Birte Glimm: ?x rdf:type rdf:XMLLiteral ←
15:09:20 <LukeWM> BirteGlimm: yes, I think it will work.
Birte Glimm: yes, I think it will work. ←
15:09:23 <chimezie> does the fact that we don't have an allocated editor for RIF-related entailment put us at risk for that regime?
Chime Ogbuji: does the fact that we don't have an allocated editor for RIF-related entailment put us at risk for that regime? ←
15:09:59 <LeeF> chimezie, i think we've always been at risk for that, given that it was 3rd or 4th in line for a time-permitting feature in the first place
Lee Feigenbaum: chimezie, i think we've always been at risk for that, given that it was 3rd or 4th in line for a time-permitting feature in the first place ←
15:10:00 <kasei> shouldn't that have legitimate answers if you aren't using d-entailment and you have a resource with that type?
Greg Williams: shouldn't that have legitimate answers if you aren't using d-entailment and you have a resource with that type? ←
15:10:09 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
15:10:13 <LeeF> ...but i also hope that Birte and Bijan can edit that into the /Entailment document once we get to that
Lee Feigenbaum: ...but i also hope that Birte and Bijan can edit that into the /Entailment document once we get to that ←
15:10:16 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: talks with BirteGlimm about queries which are legal but don't have a legal answer.
Axel Polleres: talks with BirteGlimm about queries which are legal but don't have a legal answer. ←
15:10:18 <LeeF> ack LeeF
Lee Feigenbaum: ack LeeF ←
15:10:28 <LeeF> with help from our RIF-heads
Lee Feigenbaum: with help from our RIF-heads ←
15:10:29 <BirteGlimm> according to the spec no answers
Birte Glimm: according to the spec no answers ←
15:10:43 <chimezie> okay
Chime Ogbuji: okay ←
15:10:54 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments.
ACTION: Axel to go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments. ←
15:10:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-95 - Go over entailment doc to put in at least hooks for RIF/OWL RL entailments. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29]. ←
15:11:57 <BirteGlimm> sure
Birte Glimm: sure ←
15:12:05 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors.
ACTION: Axel to contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors. ←
15:12:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-96 - Contact Eric to setup CVS access for new editors. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29]. ←
15:12:32 <LukeWM> LeeF: please send parts of drafts to the mailing list when you have them.
Lee Feigenbaum: please send parts of drafts to the mailing list when you have them. ←
15:12:37 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: any more discussion?
Axel Polleres: any more discussion? ←
15:12:45 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: reviewers?
Axel Polleres: reviewers? ←
15:12:52 <LukeWM> chimezie: I'll volunteer.
Chime Ogbuji: I'll volunteer. ←
15:13:21 <AxelPolleres> reviewers for entailment: chime, lee
Axel Polleres: reviewers for entailment: chime, lee ←
15:13:23 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: anyone else, Lee?
Axel Polleres: anyone else, Lee? ←
15:13:32 <BirteGlimm> LeeF, That's still useful ;-)
Birte Glimm: LeeF, That's still useful ;-) ←
15:13:42 <chimezie> i have to go unfortunately
Chime Ogbuji: i have to go unfortunately ←
15:13:47 <LukeWM> LeeF: I can look at completeness but not technical content.
Lee Feigenbaum: I can look at completeness but not technical content. ←
15:13:52 <AxelPolleres> topic: function library TF
15:14:21 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#Starting_Points
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:FunctionLibrary#Starting_Points ←
15:14:25 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: function library TF has had a teleconference with Andy and Lee regarding the starting point.
Axel Polleres: function library TF has had a teleconference with Andy and Lee regarding the starting point. ←
15:15:01 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: we have agreed to propose a list of functions & operators based on Xquery
Axel Polleres: we have agreed to propose a list of functions & operators based on Xquery ←
15:15:09 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: Andy has a minimal list already.
Axel Polleres: Andy has a minimal list already. ←
15:15:22 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:FunctionLibrary
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:FunctionLibrary ←
15:15:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: all operators must have URL
Axel Polleres: all operators must have URL ←
15:16:34 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: issues around namespace, whether to reuse fn or not.
Axel Polleres: issues around namespace, whether to reuse fn or not. ←
15:16:42 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: aggregates aren't covered yet.
Axel Polleres: aggregates aren't covered yet. ←
15:17:20 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: need to wait for aggregate accessibility discussion
Axel Polleres: need to wait for aggregate accessibility discussion ←
15:17:28 <BirteGlimm> Should we say anything about test cases for different entailment regimes?
Birte Glimm: Should we say anything about test cases for different entailment regimes? ←
15:17:29 <SteveH> +1 to including in query 1.1 doc
Steve Harris: +1 to including in query 1.1 doc ←
15:17:30 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: this should be part of the query document.
Axel Polleres: this should be part of the query document. ←
15:17:43 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:17:48 <SteveH> ack me
Steve Harris: ack me ←
15:17:52 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: should this be a comment?
Axel Polleres: should this be a comment? ←
15:18:19 <LukeWM> SteveH: yes, we should say we plan to include a function library but say it isn't defined yet. To save time.
Steve Harris: yes, we should say we plan to include a function library but say it isn't defined yet. To save time. ←
15:18:31 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: an editor's note that points to the wiki?
Axel Polleres: an editor's note that points to the wiki? ←
15:18:55 <LukeWM> SteveH: we should be careful pointing to the wiki
Steve Harris: we should be careful pointing to the wiki ←
15:19:03 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: steveh to include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft
ACTION: steveh to include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft ←
15:19:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-97 - Include commment on extended function library in current sparql/query-1.1 draft [on Steve Harris - due 2009-09-29]. ←
15:19:07 <LukeWM> SteveH: I will include the comment
Steve Harris: I will include the comment ←
15:19:35 <SimonS> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:BasicFederatedQuery
Simon Schenk: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Design:BasicFederatedQuery ←
15:19:43 <AxelPolleres> topic: federated query TF
15:20:37 <LukeWM> SimonS: design page on the wiki hasn't changed yet. The algebra operator syntax missing, but it doesn't seem to do anything - will send a mail to discuss this.
Simon Schenk: design page on the wiki hasn't changed yet. The algebra operator syntax missing, but it doesn't seem to do anything - will send a mail to discuss this. ←
15:21:02 <LukeWM> SimonS: one issue was that it should be an optional feature for security reasons.
Simon Schenk: one issue was that it should be an optional feature for security reasons. ←
15:21:03 <BirteGlimm> +1 to optional feature
Birte Glimm: +1 to optional feature ←
15:21:19 <LukeWM> SimonS: we should add a comment to the query document stating that it is optional.
Simon Schenk: we should add a comment to the query document stating that it is optional. ←
15:21:29 <kasei> optional features can mesh with service descriptions
Greg Williams: optional features can mesh with service descriptions ←
15:21:49 <LukeWM> SimonS: it could be allowed for update if we choose a more complex form, but frankly I don't think it's a good idea for FPWD.
Simon Schenk: it could be allowed for update if we choose a more complex form, but frankly I don't think it's a good idea for FPWD. ←
15:22:14 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:22:29 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: we should add comments in query and service description, Steve & Greg.
Axel Polleres: we should add comments in query and service description, Steve & Greg. ←
15:22:56 <LukeWM> SteveH: the FPWD shouldn't mention this as it's time permitting - I forgot that the function library was also time permitting.
Steve Harris: the FPWD shouldn't mention this as it's time permitting - I forgot that the function library was also time permitting. ←
15:23:24 <SteveH> +1 to LeeF
Steve Harris: +1 to LeeF ←
15:23:26 <LukeWM> LeeF: lets not make a decision now, in general I agree with Steve. We need to ask ivanherman.
Lee Feigenbaum: lets not make a decision now, in general I agree with Steve. We need to ask ivanherman. ←
15:23:30 <SteveH> it's safer not to metion it, probably
Steve Harris: it's safer not to metion it, probably ←
15:23:42 <SteveH> can I lose my action to add it, for now
Steve Harris: can I lose my action to add it, for now ←
15:23:43 <AxelPolleres> decision on whether FPWD should mention time permitting features postponed.
Axel Polleres: decision on whether FPWD should mention time permitting features postponed. ←
15:23:46 <LukeWM> AxelPolleres: I'll ask ivanherman
Axel Polleres: I'll ask ivanherman ←
15:24:19 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to ask ivanherman/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD.
ACTION: Axel to ask ivanherman/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD. ←
15:24:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Ask ivanherman/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-98 - Ask ivanherman/eric whether we need to mention time permitting features in FPWD. [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-09-29]. ←
15:24:26 <LukeWM> LeeF: I don't know how issues around IP exclusions work, anyone else?
Lee Feigenbaum: I don't know how issues around IP exclusions work, anyone else? ←
15:24:38 <LukeWM> LeeF, I hope that was a fair characterisation.
LeeF, I hope that was a fair characterisation. ←
15:25:10 <AxelPolleres> topic: property paths TF
15:25:31 <AxelPolleres> LukeWM: we are gathering ideas about scope.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: we are gathering ideas about scope. [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
15:26:25 <LukeWM> LukeWM: alex also proposed that we combine the feature PathLength into PropertyPaths.
Luke Wilson-Mawer: alex also proposed that we combine the feature PathLength into PropertyPaths. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#4) generated 2009-09-22 17:43:02 UTC by 'lwilsonm', comments: 'Moved topics around slightly, did some s///ing, chopped it off at the top and bottom, and removed Zakim interactions.'