See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: AndyS
Accept minutes
<DanC_lap> minutes 12 Jan
<DanC_lap> PROPOSED: to approve DAWG Weekly -- 12 Jan 2006 as a true record
<DanC_lap> so RESOLVED
Proposed to meet Thurs 19 Jan
<libby> I'll scribe
<DanC_lap> RESOLVED: to meet again Thu, 19 Jan 1600Z; libby to scribe; DanC at risk so meeting at risk
The members of the working group welcome Sven Groppe (DERI - Innsbruck)
<scribe> ACTION: KC to send an [OK?] msg re HTTP Status Codes for QueryRequestRefused and to paul etc. [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
Process is with DanC
KC deleted conflicting text in policy section
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say I don't think W3C will be happy with dropping the policy section
Protocol to be published this week and the result format document as well.
<DanC_lap> critical path is down to DanC, KC
<DanC_lap> ericp's action withdrawn
<scribe> ACTION: PatH revise Enrico's "Proposed changes" on matching and entailment for solution sequences, esp w.r.t. RDFmerge/order [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Enrico to review draft text on matching and entailment for solution sequences [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: JosD to make test case from Sergio's basic query patterns examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: DanC to review test README re "logically equivalent" vs graph equivalent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
Actions continued
Discussion of use case at start of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0114.html
<AndyS>Status of rdfSemantics: in email
<SerT> could u please post the URL to the archive?
<DanC_lap> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0114.html
<AndyS>Text, subject to Pat's action, to be incorporated. Use case about bnodes in two BGPs.
Enrico: correct is BGP2 { _:a :q ?x } => solutions (?v/3, ?x/:x) and (?v/3, ?x/:y)
<LeeF> EnricoFranconi just agreed that there are indeed 2 solutions in this case, I believe.
<LeeF> AndyS is saying that moving the FILTER clause changes the solutions
<LeeF> EnricoFranconi is saying that this is exactly how it should be since the two queries are not equivalent
<DanC_lap> (ouch. it hurts my head to say that the order of these clauses matches)
<AndyS>My pref is to not allow this case : that is not allow _:a in two BGPs.
<kendallclark> FWIW, I'm *amazingly* skeptical that anyone will ever do that.
<DanC_lap> that=? , KC
<kendallclark> (not literally "anyone", but not enough people to matter)
<kendallclark> "take a piece of turtle and stick it into a sparql 'template'"
<kendallclark> just don't find that use case compelling at all
<kendallclark> just FYI
<DanC_lap> really? not even for teaching purposes, KC?
<AndyS>Alternative: scope of label is BGP.
<LeeF> The co-referentiality of bnodes is maintained w/in a single BGP in the ordered-merge proposal, right? ( { _:a ?p _:a} )
<AndyS> Right.
<kendallclark> I wouldn't (and haven't) done that for teaching. But I guess it's more likely there than in "real work".
<kendallclark> the ability to do DWIM is one reason I don't like *must* return MalformedQuery if the query is malformed. That means my really smart thingie can't correct typos in queries. Bummer.
<DanC_lap> DanC: let's restricte FILTER syntax to be at the end of a {} thingy
PatH: {{ _:a :p ?v FILTER(?v <
5) } _:a :q ?x}
... {{ _:a :p ?v FILTER(?v < 5) } { _:a :q ?x}}
<SerT> fine 4 us
<EnricoFranconi> for FUB is fine
<SerT> I think it's a parsing issue
<AndyS>Seen cases of
{ triplepattern FILTER triplepattern FILTER ... }
<SerT> we can assume that inside a {} FILTER is always pushed at the end
<patH> Right
<SerT> even if is intermixed
<patH> Right
<patH> so bnode scoping is done by { } nesting purely.
<EnricoFranconi> we agree with PatH
Proposal is that BGP = (pattern)* (FILTER)*
<LeeF> +1 to scoping by braces. +0.5 to more explicit text explaining the current extent of BGPs01
<LeeF> FILTER clauses no longer break up BGPs
<LeeF> only braces break up BGPs
Propsoal: Make { _:a :p ?v FILTER(?v < 5) _:a :q ?x } one BGP
<DanC_lap> sergio? EnricoFranconi ?
<EnricoFranconi> ok for us
<kendallclark> +1 to dropping the justification language
<scribe> ACTION: Incorporate note that { _:a :p ?v FILTER(?v < 5) _:a :q ?x } is one BGP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
<EnricoFranconi> what is the justification language?
<DanC_lap> ACTION: AndyS to incorporate Enrico's 14 Jan proposal, refining how BGPs get broken up by FILTERs. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
<EnricoFranconi> ok
ACTION -7 (duplicated)
<kendallclark> just stating the position/design, and dropping all the text that justifies the position/design
<EnricoFranconi> make a proposal
<DanC_lap> PatH just sent mail and hopes for attention to it
<EnricoFranconi> to kendall: make a proposal
KC was making a editorial suggestion. No more
<kendallclark> yep
<kendallclark> never mind ;>
<ericP> http://www.w3.org/mid/43C792D9.5000407@hp.com
<DanC_lap> aka http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0098.html
<ericP> http://www.w3.org/mid/43C8232C.7030908@hp.com
<EnricoFranconi> Can we leave? We are at the general meeting of KnowledgeWeb project.
<EnricoFranconi> Can we announce that now we
First 4 tests from that email message
<EnricoFranconi> have a semantics for sparql? :-)
<patH> Anyone can always leave :-)
Sure - subject to editting and WG publishing and community feedback :-)
<EnricoFranconi> :----)
<DanC_lap> perhaps 11.2.2 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#ebv
<DanC_lap> EnricoFranconi, I did *not* put the question today; I hope to on Thu
EricP: Clarification that EBV is a boolean is needed
<DanC_lap> . http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#boolean-logical-or
<ericP> EBV result is the same as xsd:boolean
<DanC_lap> PROPOSED: to approve these 4:
<DanC_lap>EBV result is the same as xsd:boolean
<DanC_lap> -->#boolean-logical-or
<DanC_lap> "false"^^xsd:boolean = "0"^^xsd:boolean
<DanC_lap>-->#boolean-equiv-false
<DanC_lap> "true"^^xsd:boolean = "1"^^xsd:boolean
<DanC_lap>-->#boolean-equiv-true
<DanC_lap>T=T T=1 1=T 1=1 F=F F=0 0=F 0=0
<DanC_lap>-->#boolean-equiv-xsdtype
<DanC_lap> so RESOLVED (no objections or abstentions).
<ericP> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#boolean-false-canonical
<ericP> graph match canonical lexical form of "false"
<DanC_lap> PatH to chair for :15; DanC to finish the record
<ericP> graph match on the canonical lexical form of "true"
AndyS: got two results, not one.
<patH> PROPOSE: approve test 5, conditional on DanC's action re. logical entailment and Eric's action to add suitable explanartory text.
Related DanC action is "DanC to review test README re "logically equivalent" vs graph equivalent"
<LeeF> seconded
RESOLVED (no objections or abstentions)
<patH> typo: test 5 => test 5&6
<DanC_lap> btw, if anybody wants to take that action over for me, be my guest. I assigned it to me for lack of time/audio-quality
<patH> OK< I'll do it.
<DanC_lap> tx
<ericP> PROPOSE: approve test 7
<LeeF> seconded
RESOLVED (no objections or abstentions)
Discussion of more tests
<ericP> http://unagi/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#tp-double-double
<ericP> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#tp-float-decimal-fail
<ericP> from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#tp-double-double
<ericP> to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#tp-float-decimal-fail
<ericP> Should the XML Results set form <boolean>true</boolean> be <rs:boolean>"true"^^xsd:boolean</rs:boolean>
PROPOSED to ADJOURN
ADJOURNED