13:55:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/20-sparql-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/20-sparql-irc ←
13:55:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:55:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 77277
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 77277 ←
13:55:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes ←
13:55:43 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference
13:55:43 <trackbot> Date: 20 March 2012
13:55:48 <LeeF> zakim, this will be SPARQL
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, this will be SPARQL ←
13:55:48 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, LeeF; I see SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes ←
13:56:04 <LeeF> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0262.html
13:56:10 <LeeF> Regrets: chimezie, kasei
13:56:30 <LeeF> Last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-13
Lee Feigenbaum: Last week's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2012-03-13 ←
13:56:54 <LeeF> SteveH, any chance I could trouble you to scribe today?
Lee Feigenbaum: SteveH, any chance I could trouble you to scribe today? ←
13:57:19 <SteveH> LeeF, hm, think I did a stint not that long ago - it would be possible I think
Steve Harris: LeeF, hm, think I did a stint not that long ago - it would be possible I think ←
13:57:59 <SteveH> …depending on voice quality, it's a bit variable over voip
Steve Harris: …depending on voice quality, it's a bit variable over voip ←
13:57:59 <LeeF> I've no doubt that you're right - our scribe list is rather bit-rotted these days -- so no worries if you'd rather not
Lee Feigenbaum: I've no doubt that you're right - our scribe list is rather bit-rotted these days -- so no worries if you'd rather not ←
13:58:25 <SteveH> I would rather not, but if you can't get a volunteer I'll do it
Steve Harris: I would rather not, but if you can't get a volunteer I'll do it ←
13:58:29 <LeeF> thanks
Lee Feigenbaum: thanks ←
13:58:35 <LeeF> pgearon, any chance you could scribe for us today?
Lee Feigenbaum: pgearon, any chance you could scribe for us today? ←
13:58:49 <LeeF> zakim, code?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, code? ←
13:58:49 <Zakim> the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 77277 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), LeeF ←
13:59:38 <pgearon> LeeF, I may have problems
Paul Gearon: LeeF, I may have problems ←
13:59:38 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started ←
13:59:45 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
13:59:46 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
13:59:52 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P10 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P10 is me ←
13:59:52 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
14:00:03 <pgearon> I have JUST got a notification of "Tornado warning" for our neighborhood
Paul Gearon: I have JUST got a notification of "Tornado warning" for our neighborhood ←
14:00:10 <pgearon> like about 3 minutes ago
Paul Gearon: like about 3 minutes ago ←
14:00:15 <LeeF> wow
Lee Feigenbaum: wow ←
14:00:27 <Zakim> +Olivier_
Zakim IRC Bot: +Olivier_ ←
14:00:38 <LeeF> good ol' "can't scribe; tornado". it's like the "dog ate my homework" of standards work
Lee Feigenbaum: good ol' "can't scribe; tornado". it's like the "dog ate my homework" of standards work ←
14:00:53 <pgearon> we have storms forecast for today, I'm just trying to figure out if it's supposed to be a drill or something
Paul Gearon: we have storms forecast for today, I'm just trying to figure out if it's supposed to be a drill or something ←
14:00:53 <SteveH> we've got guys with jackhammers outside the office, which means I'll have to keep muting
Steve Harris: we've got guys with jackhammers outside the office, which means I'll have to keep muting ←
14:01:04 <LeeF> seriously though, be careful, Paul!
Lee Feigenbaum: seriously though, be careful, Paul! ←
14:01:36 <Zakim> +??P20
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20 ←
14:01:46 <bglimm> Zakim, ??P20 is me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, ??P20 is me ←
14:01:46 <Zakim> +bglimm; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +bglimm; got it ←
14:01:55 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:01:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, Olivier_, bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, Olivier_, bglimm ←
14:02:17 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
14:02:19 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
14:02:26 <Zakim> +MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: +MattPerry ←
14:02:28 <Zakim> +??P26
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P26 ←
14:02:32 <AndyS> zakim, P26 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, P26 is me ←
14:02:33 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'P26'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'P26' ←
14:02:37 <AndyS> zakim, ??P26 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P26 is me ←
14:02:37 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:03:00 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: +AxelPolleres ←
14:03:11 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:03:11 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should no longer be muted ←
14:03:38 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
14:03:38 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
14:03:51 <LeeF> zakim, who
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who ←
14:03:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who', LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who', LeeF ←
14:03:54 <LeeF> zakim, who's here?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's here? ←
14:03:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, Olivier_, bglimm (muted), MattPerry, AndyS, AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, Olivier_, bglimm (muted), MattPerry, AndyS, AxelPolleres ←
14:03:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see cbuilara, MattPerry, AxelPolleres, Zakim, RRSAgent, LeeF, Olivier, MacTed, bglimm, SteveH, pgearon, AndyS, NickH, trackbot, kasei, ya, ericP, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see cbuilara, MattPerry, AxelPolleres, Zakim, RRSAgent, LeeF, Olivier, MacTed, bglimm, SteveH, pgearon, AndyS, NickH, trackbot, kasei, ya, ericP, sandro ←
14:04:17 <LeeF> cbuilara, ericP, sandro, NickH -- will you be joining us today?
Lee Feigenbaum: cbuilara, ericP, sandro, NickH -- will you be joining us today? ←
14:04:41 <AndyS> I'll scribe
Andy Seaborne: I'll scribe ←
14:04:56 <AndyS> but if the discussions get going, may need help.
Andy Seaborne: but if the discussions get going, may need help. ←
14:05:12 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS
(Scribe set to Andy Seaborne)
14:05:17 <AndyS> topic: Admin
14:06:04 <AndyS> regrets: kasei, chimezie
14:06:06 <LeeF> Next meeting: March 27th, back to standard time everywhere
Lee Feigenbaum: Next meeting: March 27th, back to standard time everywhere ←
14:06:17 <bglimm> I am not around
Birte Glimm: I am not around ←
14:06:17 <sandro> LeeF, sorry, regrets --- this meeting conflicts with eGov IG this week due to time zone craziness.
Sandro Hawke: LeeF, sorry, regrets --- this meeting conflicts with eGov IG this week due to time zone craziness. ←
14:06:26 <bglimm> or at least at risk
Birte Glimm: or at least at risk ←
14:06:29 <LeeF> Regrets +sandro
Lee Feigenbaum: Regrets +sandro ←
14:07:08 <LeeF> sandro, if you have a feeling on the property paths options as summarized in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0262.html, it would be awesome to have you share it in IRC :)
Lee Feigenbaum: sandro, if you have a feeling on the property paths options as summarized in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0262.html, it would be awesome to have you share it in IRC :) ←
14:07:42 <AndyS> regrets: kasei, chimezie
14:08:03 <LeeF> LeeF: anything we're likely to change based on recent grammar / escaping changes?
Lee Feigenbaum: anything we're likely to change based on recent grammar / escaping changes? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:08:10 <AndyS> topic: RDF-WG
14:08:12 <LeeF> AndyS: not likely, editors not inclined to make changes -- nothing resolved in RDF WG yet
Andy Seaborne: not likely, editors not inclined to make changes -- nothing resolved in RDF WG yet [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:08:32 <AndyS> Turtle editors not inclined to make changes at this time but no decision yet.
Turtle editors not inclined to make changes at this time but no decision yet. ←
14:08:43 <Zakim> + +1.917.522.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.917.522.aaaa ←
14:08:55 <cbuilara> zakim, +aaaa is me
Carlos Buil Aranda: zakim, +aaaa is me ←
14:08:55 <Zakim> sorry, cbuilara, I do not recognize a party named '+aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, cbuilara, I do not recognize a party named '+aaaa' ←
14:09:12 <cbuilara> zakim, +.aaaa is me
Carlos Buil Aranda: zakim, +.aaaa is me ←
14:09:12 <Zakim> sorry, cbuilara, I do not recognize a party named '+.aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, cbuilara, I do not recognize a party named '+.aaaa' ←
14:09:20 <Zakim> - +1.917.522.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.917.522.aaaa ←
14:09:36 <Zakim> + +1.917.522.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.917.522.aabb ←
14:09:44 <LeeF> topic: property paths
14:09:49 <LeeF> summary email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0262.html
Lee Feigenbaum: summary email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2012JanMar/0262.html ←
14:09:51 <AndyS> Topic: Property Paths
14:09:59 <cbuilara> zakim, +1.917.522.aabb is me
Carlos Buil Aranda: zakim, +1.917.522.aabb is me ←
14:09:59 <Zakim> +cbuilara; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cbuilara; got it ←
14:10:17 <AndyS> Goal - ask what people think currently and have a strawpoll.
Goal - ask what people think currently and have a strawpoll. ←
14:10:25 <AndyS> LeeF: Goal - ask what people think currently and have a strawpoll.
Lee Feigenbaum: Goal - ask what people think currently and have a strawpoll. ←
14:10:27 <Zakim> +pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: +pgearon ←
14:10:37 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
14:10:40 <AndyS> ... hopefully to choose a direction.
... hopefully to choose a direction. ←
14:11:07 <AndyS> ... Opt 1 - as 2LC. Rewrite using SELECT DISTINCT subquery.
... Opt 1 - as 2LC. Rewrite using SELECT DISTINCT subquery. ←
14:11:22 <AndyS> ... no LC, no new issues from new designs.
... no LC, no new issues from new designs. ←
14:11:52 <AndyS> ... but objections may be raised so needs a justification to the director
... but objections may be raised so needs a justification to the director ←
14:12:00 <AndyS> ... 3 commenters involved
... 3 commenters involved ←
14:12:30 <AndyS> ... and it may not the best choice (from experience and theory).
... and it may not the best choice (from experience and theory). ←
14:12:39 <ericP> do we have any use cases from the potential objecters where rewriting in a DISTINCT subselect won't suffice?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: do we have any use cases from the potential objecters where rewriting in a DISTINCT subselect won't suffice? ←
14:13:16 <AndyS> Opt 2 -- DISTINCT, non-counting * and +, counting {*}, {+}
Opt 2 -- DISTINCT, non-counting * and +, counting {*}, {+} ←
14:13:33 <AndyS> ... addresses concerns (offlist private conversation had)
... addresses concerns (offlist private conversation had) ←
14:13:42 <AndyS> ... full range of possibilities.
... full range of possibilities. ←
14:14:02 <AndyS> ... but 3LC needed
... but 3LC needed ←
14:14:08 <AndyS> ... more implementation tax
... more implementation tax ←
14:14:20 <AndyS> ... new and quite late.
... new and quite late. ←
14:14:36 <AndyS> (dragons of various colors possible)
(dragons of various colors possible) ←
14:15:10 <AndyS> Opt 3 -- just add DISTINCT around path (?? part paths or full path only)
Opt 3 -- just add DISTINCT around path (?? part paths or full path only) ←
14:15:23 <AndyS> ... some expressivity choices
... some expressivity choices ←
14:15:38 <AndyS> ... 3LC, and impl tax.
... 3LC, and impl tax. ←
14:16:13 <AndyS> Opt 4 -- Just */+ and {*}/{+}, no DISTINCT operator.
Opt 4 -- Just */+ and {*}/{+}, no DISTINCT operator. ←
14:16:33 <AndyS> ... 3LC, may not meeting comments.
... 3LC, may not meeting comments. ←
14:16:51 <AndyS> Opt 5 -- make PP non-normative
Opt 5 -- make PP non-normative ←
14:17:11 <AndyS> ... 3LC? (unclear), lower impl tax,
... 3LC? (unclear), lower impl tax, ←
14:17:23 <ericP> i think that would require a new LC as folks are expecting property paths to e.g. traverse lists
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think that would require a new LC as folks are expecting property paths to e.g. traverse lists ←
14:17:40 <AndyS> ... but a significant feature, and in F&R, is removed
... but a significant feature, and in F&R, is removed ←
14:17:56 <AndyS> ... may lead to other objections
... may lead to other objections ←
14:17:58 <AndyS> q+
q+ ←
14:18:00 <bglimm> q+ to ask about (2)
Birte Glimm: q+ to ask about (2) ←
14:18:02 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:18:14 <bglimm> Zakim, unmute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:18:14 <Zakim> bglimm should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should no longer be muted ←
14:18:15 <ericP> q+ to ask if we have any use cases from the potential objecters where rewriting in a DISTINCT subselect won't suffice
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if we have any use cases from the potential objecters where rewriting in a DISTINCT subselect won't suffice ←
14:18:26 <LeeF> AndyS: technical question when you say DISTINCT(path) in 2 - do you mean whole path or some part of the path?
Andy Seaborne: technical question when you say DISTINCT(path) in 2 - do you mean whole path or some part of the path? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:18:42 <LeeF> LeeF: whole path
Lee Feigenbaum: whole path [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:18:50 <LeeF> ack bglimm
Lee Feigenbaum: ack bglimm ←
14:18:50 <Zakim> bglimm, you wanted to ask about (2)
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm, you wanted to ask about (2) ←
14:18:53 <AndyS> Clarification of opt 2 : DISTINCT(path) means whole path not part of a path.
Clarification of opt 2 : DISTINCT(path) means whole path not part of a path. ←
14:18:58 <SteveH> q+ to ask about other people's comfort
Steve Harris: q+ to ask about other people's comfort ←
14:18:59 <AndyS> ack me
ack me ←
14:19:02 <LeeF> ack ericP
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericP ←
14:19:02 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if we have any use cases from the potential objecters where rewriting in a DISTINCT subselect won't suffice
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if we have any use cases from the potential objecters where rewriting in a DISTINCT subselect won't suffice ←
14:19:21 <bglimm> Zakim, mute me
Birte Glimm: Zakim, mute me ←
14:19:21 <Zakim> bglimm should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: bglimm should now be muted ←
14:19:38 <AndyS> eric: question - any case where SELECT DISTINCT path does not work?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: question - any case where SELECT DISTINCT path does not work? ←
14:19:52 <AndyS> axel: bnodes in subj/obj.
Axel Polleres: bnodes in subj/obj. ←
14:19:55 <AndyS> q+
q+ ←
14:20:16 <AndyS> (basically the projection is messed up as bnodes are a sort of projection)
(basically the projection is messed up as bnodes are a sort of projection) ←
14:20:30 <AxelPolleres> somthing like that one .... { ?S DISTINCT(path) [ ... ] }
Axel Polleres: somthing like that one .... { ?S DISTINCT(path) [ ... ] } ←
14:20:46 <AxelPolleres> ... exactly, as andy says.
Axel Polleres: ... exactly, as andy says. ←
14:21:32 <LeeF> AndyS: The problem with that would be that you'd be expecting implementations to recognize the distinct subqueries and do something special with it, so implementation cost wouldn't be changed at all
Andy Seaborne: The problem with that would be that you'd be expecting implementations to recognize the distinct subqueries and do something special with it, so implementation cost wouldn't be changed at all [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:21:43 <AndyS> andy: Impl burden is not changed - assumes an impl spots an optimization
Andy Seaborne: Impl burden is not changed - assumes an impl spots an optimization ←
14:22:33 <AndyS> q-
q- ←
14:22:36 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:22:38 <LeeF> ack SteveH
Lee Feigenbaum: ack SteveH ←
14:22:38 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask about other people's comfort
Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH, you wanted to ask about other people's comfort ←
14:23:13 <AndyS> SteveH: reservation about understanding of PP, and significant problems may yet arise.
Steve Harris: reservation about understanding of PP, and significant problems may yet arise. ←
14:23:51 <AxelPolleres> q?
Axel Polleres: q? ←
14:24:02 <AxelPolleres> q+
Axel Polleres: q+ ←
14:24:04 <AndyS> ... want to hear how comfortable people are with the draft text
... want to hear how comfortable people are with the draft text ←
14:24:16 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←
14:24:29 <AndyS> (andy can answer but want to hear others)
(andy can answer but want to hear others) ←
14:24:29 <ericP> I have not implemented them. sort of afraid of them
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I have not implemented them. sort of afraid of them ←
14:25:07 <AndyS> axel; Non-norm PP may address commenters concerns.
axel; Non-norm PP may address commenters concerns. ←
14:25:49 <pgearon> I have implemented DISTINCT property paths. Haven't done counted paths yet
Paul Gearon: I have implemented DISTINCT property paths. Haven't done counted paths yet ←
14:26:28 <AndyS> steveH: make new design non-norm??
Steve Harris: make new design non-norm?? ←
14:27:00 <MattPerry> We have seen a lot of interest in property paths as a poor man's inference for transitive properties.
Matthew Perry: We have seen a lot of interest in property paths as a poor man's inference for transitive properties. ←
14:27:01 <pgearon> we're using property paths all the time. We use them for list membership
Paul Gearon: we're using property paths all the time. We use them for list membership ←
14:28:22 <AndyS> leef: see significant interest in the feature ... driven by some UCs that can't be addressed by SPARQL 1.0 e.g lists, trans properties
Lee Feigenbaum: see significant interest in the feature ... driven by some UCs that can't be addressed by SPARQL 1.0 e.g lists, trans properties ←
14:28:36 <LeeF> AndyS: I've found pp quite easy to implement
Andy Seaborne: I've found pp quite easy to implement [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:28:51 <LeeF> ... i've implemented a recursive evaluator that takes the operator tree straight from parsing and runs eval() on it
Lee Feigenbaum: ... i've implemented a recursive evaluator that takes the operator tree straight from parsing and runs eval() on it ←
14:29:23 <LeeF> ... some paths simply get rewritten into triple patterns and UNIONs
Lee Feigenbaum: ... some paths simply get rewritten into triple patterns and UNIONs ←
14:30:41 <LeeF> ... i've tried counting & non-counting versions on the Chileans examples (foaf:knows on clique graphs) makes huge implementation speed difference from just changing one or two lines of code
Lee Feigenbaum: ... i've tried counting & non-counting versions on the Chileans examples (foaf:knows on clique graphs) makes huge implementation speed difference from just changing one or two lines of code ←
14:30:52 <LeeF> ... any questions about how I've implemented this?
Lee Feigenbaum: ... any questions about how I've implemented this? ←
14:31:21 <LeeF> SteveH: our concerns are that it's not worth implementing unless it's optimized, and that seems to be way too much of a challenge
Steve Harris: our concerns are that it's not worth implementing unless it's optimized, and that seems to be way too much of a challenge [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:31:30 <LeeF> AndyS: I've optimized for certain use cases
Andy Seaborne: I've optimized for certain use cases [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:31:57 <LeeF> ... have not optimized for the case where subj and obj are both unconstrained, free variables
Lee Feigenbaum: ... have not optimized for the case where subj and obj are both unconstrained, free variables ←
14:32:44 <LeeF> SteveH: seems like it requires an entire regex engine and evaluator for an unknown language
Steve Harris: seems like it requires an entire regex engine and evaluator for an unknown language [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:32:59 <LeeF> AndyS: it's not doing regexes on strings
Andy Seaborne: it's not doing regexes on strings [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:33:04 <LeeF> SteveH: it's significantly easier?
Steve Harris: it's significantly easier? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:33:09 <LeeF> AndyS: yes
Andy Seaborne: yes [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:33:25 <LeeF> SteveH: i don't have the intuition for why it's significantl yeasier - it still has the same backtracking problems
Steve Harris: i don't have the intuition for why it's significantl yeasier - it still has the same backtracking problems [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:33:37 <LeeF> AndyS: we don't have some regex features that makes them tricky, like capturing groups
Andy Seaborne: we don't have some regex features that makes them tricky, like capturing groups [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:33:51 <LeeF> ... this is jus the matching aspects of regexes
Lee Feigenbaum: ... this is jus the matching aspects of regexes ←
14:34:12 <LeeF> ... for non-counting, there's no backtracking because it's just a positive match, no negative features
Lee Feigenbaum: ... for non-counting, there's no backtracking because it's just a positive match, no negative features ←
14:34:39 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:35:01 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
14:35:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, Olivier_, bglimm (muted), MattPerry, AndyS, AxelPolleres, cbuilara, pgearon, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see SteveH, LeeF, Olivier_, bglimm (muted), MattPerry, AndyS, AxelPolleres, cbuilara, pgearon, ericP ←
14:35:22 <LeeF> AndyS: Steve, does your organization have possible use cases for pp if they had been around?
Andy Seaborne: Steve, does your organization have possible use cases for pp if they had been around? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:35:30 <LeeF> SteveH: it's an assumption - i'm sure we do but don't know what they are
Steve Harris: it's an assumption - i'm sure we do but don't know what they are [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:35:35 <LeeF> AndyS: OK
Andy Seaborne: OK [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:35:52 <LeeF> SteveH: we tend to have wacky use cases anyway
Steve Harris: we tend to have wacky use cases anyway [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:36:07 <ericP> q+ try to factor those who need exhaustive vs. those who need distinct
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ try to factor those who need exhaustive vs. those who need distinct ←
14:36:11 <LeeF> ack ericP
Lee Feigenbaum: ack ericP ←
14:37:39 <Zakim> -pgearon
Zakim IRC Bot: -pgearon ←
14:37:47 <AndyS> EricP: Do they think non-counting is more intuitive?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Do they think non-counting is more intuitive? ←
14:38:01 <AndyS> LeeF: it looks that way
Lee Feigenbaum: it looks that way ←
14:38:22 <AndyS> EricP: Who needs what?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Who needs what? ←
14:38:51 <AndyS> LeeF: It's about performance not wrong results.
Lee Feigenbaum: It's about performance not wrong results. ←
14:39:09 <AxelPolleres> q+
Axel Polleres: q+ ←
14:39:32 <AndyS> EricP: axel says bnodes mean SELECT DISTINCT may have problems.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: axel says bnodes mean SELECT DISTINCT may have problems. ←
14:39:44 <AndyS> ack try
ack try ←
14:39:44 <Zakim> try, you wanted to factor those who need exhaustive vs. those who need distinct
Zakim IRC Bot: try, you wanted to factor those who need exhaustive vs. those who need distinct ←
14:39:56 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←
14:39:58 <AndyS> ack axel
ack axel ←
14:40:17 <AndyS> Axel: { ?s path [] }
Axel Polleres: { ?s path [] } ←
14:40:56 <ericP> { ?s path [] }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: { ?s path [] } ←
14:40:58 <AndyS> ... bnodes also generate dups so need careful handling (implicit projection).
... bnodes also generate dups so need careful handling (implicit projection). ←
14:41:10 <ericP> { ?s path [] } vs. { ?s path ?x }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: { ?s path [] } vs. { ?s path ?x } ←
14:41:16 <AndyS> ... DISTINCT(path) makes it easier to spot the right algorithm to use.
... DISTINCT(path) makes it easier to spot the right algorithm to use. ←
14:42:03 <Zakim> + +1.540.841.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.841.aacc ←
14:42:16 <AndyS> q+ to say there is a UC for non-counting
q+ to say there is a UC for non-counting ←
14:42:33 <AxelPolleres> { ?s path1 [ path2 ... [ ... ] ] }
Axel Polleres: { ?s path1 [ path2 ... [ ... ] ] } ←
14:43:04 <ericP> { ?s path [] } -> { ?s path ?x } -> { { SELECT ?s { ?s path ?x } GROUP BY ?x } }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: { ?s path [] } -> { ?s path ?x } -> { { SELECT ?s { ?s path ?x } GROUP BY ?x } } ←
14:43:10 <AndyS> ... rewrite is hard - need to specially redo as generated named variables that get hidden but at a different point to how bnodes go away
... rewrite is hard - need to specially redo as generated named variables that get hidden but at a different point to how bnodes go away ←
14:43:20 <LeeF> ack AndyS
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←
14:43:20 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to say there is a UC for non-counting
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to say there is a UC for non-counting ←
14:44:00 <AxelPolleres> the common use case for non-counting is "reachability"
Axel Polleres: the common use case for non-counting is "reachability" ←
14:44:05 <LeeF> AndyS: the use case for non-counting is not that you can't write it the other way is connectivity
Andy Seaborne: the use case for non-counting is not that you can't write it the other way is connectivity [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:44:31 <LeeF> ...you can solve them the other way, but you're asking the query writer to transform a problem that was naturally expressed as reachability into counting and then back again
Lee Feigenbaum: ...you can solve them the other way, but you're asking the query writer to transform a problem that was naturally expressed as reachability into counting and then back again ←
14:44:37 <LeeF> q?
Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←
14:46:04 <AndyS> LeeF: strawpoll on all five options -- standard way. Will write each out - please +1/0/-1(objection possible), only integer values
Lee Feigenbaum: strawpoll on all five options -- standard way. Will write each out - please +1/0/-1(objection possible), only integer values ←
14:46:23 <LeeF> STRAWPOLL on option 1, leave as-is in 2LC with no change
Lee Feigenbaum: STRAWPOLL on option 1, leave as-is in 2LC with no change ←
14:46:26 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
14:46:27 <SteveH> 0
Steve Harris: 0 ←
14:46:29 <bglimm> 0 (concerned about formal objection)
Birte Glimm: 0 (concerned about formal objection) ←
14:46:30 <MattPerry> 0
Matthew Perry: 0 ←
14:46:30 <cbuilara> 0
14:46:34 <AndyS> 0
0 ←
14:46:35 <Olivier> 0
Olivier Corby: 0 ←
14:46:43 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
14:47:16 <LeeF> pgearon: -1
Paul Gearon: -1 [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←
14:47:36 <ericP> 0
14:47:56 <ericP> sorry, thouth it was already the next strawpoll
Eric Prud'hommeaux: sorry, thouth it was already the next strawpoll ←
14:48:02 <LeeF> STRAWPOLL on option 2, include both DISTINCT(full-path) and {+}/{*} operators
Lee Feigenbaum: STRAWPOLL on option 2, include both DISTINCT(full-path) and {+}/{*} operators ←
14:48:05 <SteveH> -1
Steve Harris: -1 ←
14:48:07 <ericP> 0
14:48:08 <MattPerry> 0
Matthew Perry: 0 ←
14:48:11 <Olivier> 0
Olivier Corby: 0 ←
14:48:14 <LeeF> 0
Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←
14:48:16 <cbuilara> 0
14:48:19 <AxelPolleres> 0
Axel Polleres: 0 ←
14:48:19 <AndyS> What about DISTINCT(path component)?
What about DISTINCT(path component)? ←
14:48:31 <bglimm> 0
Birte Glimm: 0 ←
14:48:53 <AxelPolleres> q+
Axel Polleres: q+ ←
14:49:23 <LeeF> ack AxelPolleres
Lee Feigenbaum: ack AxelPolleres ←
14:50:10 <AndyS> +1 and pref general DISTINCT(path-component)
+1 and pref general DISTINCT(path-component) ←
14:50:10 <pgearon> opt 2: +1
Paul Gearon: opt 2: +1 ←
14:50:37 <LeeF> STRAWPOLL on option 3, add DISTINCT(full-path) only
Lee Feigenbaum: STRAWPOLL on option 3, add DISTINCT(full-path) only ←
14:50:44 <SteveH> +1, but with reservations
Steve Harris: +1, but with reservations ←
14:50:45 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:50:46 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
14:50:49 <MattPerry> +1
Matthew Perry: +1 ←
14:50:49 <Olivier> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
14:50:52 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
14:50:53 <pgearon> +1
Paul Gearon: +1 ←
14:50:54 <ericP> 0
14:50:56 <cbuilara> +1
Carlos Buil Aranda: +1 ←
14:50:58 <AndyS> 0
0 ←
14:51:27 <ericP> (in +3 months)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (in +3 months) ←
14:51:43 <LeeF> STRAWPOLL on option 5, mark property paths as non-normative
Lee Feigenbaum: STRAWPOLL on option 5, mark property paths as non-normative ←
14:52:11 <ericP> 0
14:52:15 <pgearon> -1
Paul Gearon: -1 ←
14:52:16 <AxelPolleres> 0
Axel Polleres: 0 ←
14:52:18 <LeeF> STRAWPOLL on option 5, mark our best guess at what property paths should be as non-normative
Lee Feigenbaum: STRAWPOLL on option 5, mark our best guess at what property paths should be as non-normative ←
14:52:19 <MattPerry> -1
Matthew Perry: -1 ←
14:52:21 <Olivier> 0
Olivier Corby: 0 ←
14:52:22 <LeeF> 0
Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←
14:52:24 <AndyS> -1
-1 ←
14:52:24 <bglimm> 0
Birte Glimm: 0 ←
14:52:25 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
14:52:27 <cbuilara> 0
14:53:00 <AndyS> Best consensus is opt 3.
Best consensus is opt 3. ←
14:53:01 <ericP> +1 to LeeF's impending proposal on option 3
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to LeeF's impending proposal on option 3 ←
14:53:13 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
14:57:16 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Add a DISTINCT modifier around full property paths to SPARQL 1.1 Query, and add work on counting & non-counting operators or partial paths to the future work list
PROPOSED: Add a DISTINCT modifier around full property paths to SPARQL 1.1 Query, and add work on counting & non-counting operators or partial paths to the future work list ←
14:57:47 <SteveH> seconded
Steve Harris: seconded ←
14:57:50 <AndyS> abstain
abstain ←
14:58:00 <Olivier> +1
Olivier Corby: +1 ←
14:58:00 <pgearon> abstain
Paul Gearon: abstain ←
14:58:11 <bglimm> +1
Birte Glimm: +1 ←
14:58:22 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Add a DISTINCT modifier around full property paths to SPARQL 1.1 Query, and add work on counting & non-counting operators or partial paths to the future work list
RESOLVED: Add a DISTINCT modifier around full property paths to SPARQL 1.1 Query, and add work on counting & non-counting operators or partial paths to the future work list ←
14:58:35 <LeeF> ACTION: Lee to add the counting/noncounting operators and distinct partial paths to future work list
ACTION: Lee to add the counting/noncounting operators and distinct partial paths to future work list ←
14:58:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-604 - Add the counting/noncounting operators and distinct partial paths to future work list [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2012-03-27].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-604 - Add the counting/noncounting operators and distinct partial paths to future work list [on Lee Feigenbaum - due 2012-03-27]. ←
14:59:47 <AndyS> Birte - this affects entailment. Need to restrict entailment to BGPs without PP?
Birte - this affects entailment. Need to restrict entailment to BGPs without PP? ←
14:59:48 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
14:59:49 <Zakim> -Olivier_
Zakim IRC Bot: -Olivier_ ←
14:59:53 <Zakim> -MattPerry
Zakim IRC Bot: -MattPerry ←
14:59:54 <Zakim> -bglimm
Zakim IRC Bot: -bglimm ←
14:59:54 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
14:59:55 <bglimm> bze
Birte Glimm: bze ←
14:59:56 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
Zakim IRC Bot: -AxelPolleres ←
14:59:58 <Zakim> -cbuilara
Zakim IRC Bot: -cbuilara ←
15:00:01 <Zakim> - +1.540.841.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.540.841.aacc ←
15:00:06 <AndyS> adjourned
adjourned ←
15:00:09 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
15:00:10 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has ended ←
15:00:10 <Zakim> Attendees were LeeF, SteveH, Olivier_, bglimm, MattPerry, AndyS, AxelPolleres, +1.917.522.aaaa, cbuilara, pgearon, ericP, +1.540.841.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were LeeF, SteveH, Olivier_, bglimm, MattPerry, AndyS, AxelPolleres, +1.917.522.aaaa, cbuilara, pgearon, ericP, +1.540.841.aacc ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2012-03-20 18:49:50 UTC by 'lfeigenb', comments: None