W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Meeting record - SPARQL Telecon, Tues Mar 3

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:11:05 -0500
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090303191105.GA17424@w3.org>


                      SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

03 Mar 2009


   See also: [3]IRC log


          LeeF, kasei, AndyS, +1.216.445.aaaa, iv_an_ru, bijan, [Garlik],
          Chimezie_Ogbuji, john-l, terraces, AxelPolleres, ivan,
          +656304aabb, ywang4, +1.603.897.aacc, Souri, EricP, Ori,
          daveNewman, Souri_Das


          ericP, AxelPolleres

   [4]minutes from last meeting (Feb 24)


     * [5]Topics
         1. [6]admin
         2. [7]logistics
         3. [8]liaisons
         4. [9]F2F
         5. [10]use cases
     * [11]Summary of Action Items

   <scribe> scribenick: AxelPolleres

   Lee: clarification... Wg is open only to W3C members, although we
   conduct work in public
   ... minutes, agenda, wiki are all public and encouraged to be shared.

   Lee: if you want to keep something non-public, mail us (team/chairs)


   minutes from last time are on the web.

   PROPOSED: accept minutes from last week

   <bijan> I just look and they look ok

   RESOLUTION: minutes from last week approved

   next meeting: 10am US time, 1400Z

   lastlog trackbot


     * [12]SPARQL Wiki
     * [13]scribe list

   LeeF: we have intros linked from the wiki
   ... encourage others to supply intros

   john-l: chime and i missed last week

   john-l: 2nd rep for cleveland clinic (cleveburg OH)
   ... chime and i are working on an impl, hoping to push mods back into

   chime: john-l and i work on a patient registry

   chime: we've done a hand full of improvements. expect they are useful
   in general

   ivan: ivan the elder
   ... W3C semweb activity lead
   ... 2nd contact

   yimin: working in lilly singapore
   ... working on data integration projects in lilly
   ... looking for insert/delete, stuff like that

   souri: Souri Das, Oracle
   ... was part of DAWG. passionate about it as i expect it to be useful
   for DI in general


   LeeF, we might want a tracker intro under logistics

   <LeeF> ericP, yes, i agree, but am not prepared to do it at the moment

   AxelPolleres: liasons are supposed to connect us with other groups
   touching our work
   ... need liasons with three W3C groups:

   <bijan> XQuery?

   AxelPolleres: .. OWL
   ... .. RIF
   ... .. RDB2RDF

   <bijan> HCLS interest group

   AxelPolleres: any other suggestions?
   ... would like liason status update at beginnings of meetings

   <bijan> I think it's overkill to do it each telecon...generally,
   there's fewer occasions to mention

   RESOLUTION: Bijan appointed OWL liason

   <iv_an_ru> Orri and I are in RDB2RDF

   <AxelPolleres> Bijan: additional liaison XQuery?

   <bijan> +1 to eric for liasing with HCLS

   RESOLUTION: ericP appointed HCLS liason

   RESOLUTION: orri appointed RDB2RDF liason

   RESOLUTION: axel appointed RIF liason

   <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say i have good contact with HCLS

   <AxelPolleres> Should we "advertise" to them? maybe someone was
   interested to join us, at least to follow?

   <AndyS> XQuery are also working on full text search

   but i was locally muted

   <AndyS> s/arealoo/are also/

   ericP: expect that we will need to touch XQuery if we import more XPath


   LeeF: most folks have tougher travel restrictions than in the past

   <iv_an_ru> we will need to touch XQuery if we extend XQuery with SPARQL

   LeeF: don't expect to have our four meetings this year
   ... hope to have a f2f a couple months from now when we settle on our

   PROPOSED: host first f2f 5-6May in Cambridge, MA, USA -- (other telecon
   sites may be amendmants)

   <bijan> tues are potentially bad

   <AndyS> May 6,7 is preferrable to me as well. Can make May 5 if

   <bijan> I can't do tues easily

   <AxelPolleres> eric: rooms might be a problem 7-8

   <bijan> 2 days

   <chimezie> +1 2 days

   <ywang4> 2 days should be fine

   <SteveH> +1 2 days

   <ivan> 2 days (it is hard to keep up work of that intensity for 3 days)

   <souri2> May 6-7 is better for me. 2 days.

   <AndyS> 2 days unless it is clear 3 is needed

   <bijan> Can't do the 5th

   <bijan> (most likely)

   <AxelPolleres> no preference

   <ywang4> okay, i can try to adapt

   <iv_an_ru> My US visa has expired so I'm probably missing the f2f.

   <AxelPolleres> let's tentatively fix 6-7 shall we also set up a

   <SteveH> +q to ask about multi site

   <ivan> no

   <bijan> I think chairs decision is fine

   <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask about multi site

   <bijan> As long as it's announced far enough in advance...8 weeks

   <AndyS> I can ask our comms people about a telecon link

   <bijan> I can ask about access grid access

   <LeeF> Pick other (U.K. / Europe?) site in the next week or two, please
   send possibilities to mailing list

   PROPOSED: host first f2f 6-7May in Cambridge, MA, USA -- (other telecon
   sites may be amendmants)

   <souri2> What will be the hours for F2F?

   <AxelPolleres> [14]http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1

   <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to mention video room availability

   <bijan> Manchester has a room

   <bijan> HP has one...I've seen it :)

use cases

   <iv_an_ru> use case 1: TPC-H

   <iv_an_ru> (we pass it in SPARQL :)

   LeeF: 1st phase: define what features we want to work on
   ... we're bound to 18 months, including spec, tests, impl report
   ... likely a very small set. need to settle on them in the next month

   <AxelPolleres> Please indicate your availability for F2F1 on the wiki
   page: [15]http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1

   LeeF: we're blurring the line between use case and feature
   ... e.g. "peform aggregate functions", "query over arbitrary length
   ... we're not aiming for higher-level use cases, � la "Bob runs a
   stereo store..."
   ... looking for examples, implementations

   <iv_an_ru> use case 2: a graph with Gantt chart, personal calendars and
   some trivial validation.

   LeeF: need a champions who will speak in depth about the feature

   bijan: would we do one req, or stagger them?

   LeeF: should we write todo list or a priority list?

   bijan: i like getting things done
   ... but there's value publicity of a slew of things
   ... but if we can get stuff out

   AndyS: knocking off some easy ones would get the community engaged

   <bijan> +1 to AndyS

   <SteveH> +1 to AndyS

   AndyS: i like to work on one thing at a time, and do it properly

   ivan: short charter, and rec process takes time and energy
   ... publishing several things in a staggered way could backfire
   ... bijan, is the idea to pub sparql1,1, 1,2, 1.3?


   <iv_an_ru> +q

   bijan, was wondering if we could modularize parts into specs.

   scribe: e.g. separate owl semantics spec

   <bijan> The HTML5 spec indicates the stability levels of different
   *sections* of the spec...which might be good for implementors

   LeeF: modularizing sounds great, if we can modularize ourselves

   <AndyS> +1 to modularization (if it does not cause rework just for

   <Zakim> bijan, you wanted to answer

   ericP: could modularize sections, do tests and impl reports, and
   package as a spec when we get near the end

   AxelPolleres: use cases should identify which spec they affect (e.g.
   protocol, xml results format)
   ... we've listed deliverables in the charter. we're not bound to that?

   LeeF: nope. our deliverables will fall out from our use cases

   iv_an_ru: not sure the final doc should be a single spec, e.g.
   ... they [features] are more useful when used together
   ... when i need business intelligence, i need it on everything

   <ivan> +1 to iv_an_ru

   LeeF: don't expect us to break up core parts

   <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask about terminology

   <bijan> The spec shouldn't have everything it but neither should it be
   the minimal publishable unit

   LeeF: don't want to lose interop if all these features are on their own

   <bijan> Rightsizing!

   SteveH: do we want use cases?

   <bijan> New features + rationale?

   SteveH: am nagged by calling features "use cases"

   <iv_an_ru> yes!

   SteveH: just want to call them what they are

   <chimezie> then perhaps we should be a little more explicit in the
   request for what we want (usecase v.s. feature request)

   <bijan> (The OWL document is called "new features and rationales"

   LeeF: agreed. would like to dive straight into features

   SteveH: when we prioritize, we'll talk about use cases, regardless of
   whether we write them down

   <AndyS> While features are natural/obvious this is OK but if one comes
   along which the WG as a whole finds unobvious, we need to back off to
   use cases.

   <LeeF> +1 to AndyS_

   <SteveH> +1

   AxelPolleres: template rationale: thought the features we want to add
   should be driven by practical examples

   <iv_an_ru> use cases should be written down at least in our wiki, if
   not in final docs, because they demonstrate how features

   <bijan> Use cases doesn't exhaust...e.g., implementability are also

   AxelPolleres: had in mind to merge use cases in the 2nd phase
   ... good feature requests often have a use case around them

   <iv_an_ru> Let's think that everything is implementable :)

   <bijan> So, new feature: "Awesome feature"; rationale: "here's the
   intuition", "here's the implementation considerations", "here's some
   use cases"

   AxelPolleres: if you a system with .e.g aggregates, add you syntax to
   that feature

   <bijan> Are we all registered in the wiki? If not what do we do?

   <SteveH> +1 to calling the features and having a usecase subsection

   LeeF: let's call them features (tweak the template), add a section for
   use cases under each feature, and have example syntaxes for the feature

   <LukeWM> +1 to that too

   <ywang4> will go offline shortly, have fun :)

   APPROVED: rename "use cases" to "features"

   <bijan> Did I miss the in

   <bijan> structiosn for getting on the wiki?

   <bijan> Oh. Ewwwww

   <LeeF> I'll send a bunch about this in email

   <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about outside contributions

   AndyS: what about folks who are not in the group, but plan to join
   ... ?

   LeeF: would like folks to send to public-rdf-dawg-comments

   <bijan> +1 to open solicitation

   <SteveH> risks a lot of work sorting out duplicates

   AndyS: danger of opening floodgate

   <SteveH> but still +1

   <bijan> We can always say "no" :)

   <LeeF> I'll take the responsibility for sorting out dupes :-)

   <bijan> No specification without championiation!

   <iv_an_ru> We can invite people to read the wiki before (re)submitting
   proposals :)

   <LeeF> iv_an_ru +1

   <AxelPolleres> heavy echo

   <bijan> ta ta

   <AxelPolleres> scribenick: AxelPolleres

   Ivan: we can allow input from those who intend to join.

   Lee: Will sned an email on the list to gather as many features as we
   can by next week.

   <iv_an_ru> Even more, implementation providers may announce in their
   support mailing lists that they collect wishes for SPARQL 2.0 and act
   as proxies.

   <AndyS> SPARQL 1.1 please. Not 2.0. It's incremental!

   Lee: Is it appropriate to list that on the blog as well.

   <SteveH> +1 to SPARQL 1.1

   Ivan: sure.

   <iv_an_ru> ok, SPARQL 1.1

   Ivan: Next week will be messy, since meeting is one hour earlier!!!

   <SteveH> bye

   meeting adjourned

   <LeeF> AxelPolleres, do you want to try to follow the scribe
   instructions, or would you like me to?

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: LeeF to see if the SPARQL tracker is setup correctly
   [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version 1.133 (
    [19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2009/03/03 16:26:38 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-03-03
   3. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-02-24
   5. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#agenda
   6. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item01
   7. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item02
   8. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item03
   9. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item04
  10. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#item05
  11. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki
  13. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Scribe_List
  14. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1
  15. http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/F2F1
  16. http://www.w3.org/2009/01/sparql-charter.html#deliverables
  17. http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-sparql-minutes.html#action01
  18. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  19. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: +1.617.599.3509

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 19:11:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:55 UTC