- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:58:29 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
hypertext: http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes
plain text:
RDF Data Access Weekly meeting
29 Aug 2006
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0188.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-irc
Attendees
Present
Kendall_Clark, SimonR, DanC, LeeF, FredZ, EliasT, bijan, PatH
Regrets
EricP, Andy, Steve, Libby, Jeen
Chair
Kendall_Clark
Scribe
DanC
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Convene, take roll, approve minutes
2. [6]Issues List updated
3. [7]heartbeat requirement, time between publications
4. [8]Open World Value Tests
5. [9]Filter evaluation issues
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Convene, take roll, approve minutes
<scribe> Scribe: DanC
-> [11]minutes 22 Aug
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/att-0187/22-dawg-minutes.html
<kendallclark>
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0
188.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0188.html
<kendallclark>
[13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0
187.html
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0187.html
RESOLUTION: to accept 22 Aug minutes as a true record.
<LeeF> next Tues. works for me
PROPOSED: to meet again Tue, 5 Sep 10:30aET
<FredZ> fred can attend
<EliasT> works for me
<LeeF> I'll scribe.
Bijan: regrets for next week, most likely
RESOLUTION: to meet again Tue, 5 Sep 10:30aET; LeeF to scribe;
regrets from PatH
<SimonR> I don't object to dealing with process first before the
agenda items.
DanC: last publication was 6 Apr, more than 3 months ago; I'd like
to talk about that a bit
Issues List updated
<kendallclark> [14]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues
[14] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues
[15]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues v 1.143
[15] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues
KC: I count 7 open issues.
[[
1. punctuationSyntax open
2. nestedOptionals open
3. formsOfDistinct open
4. contradictoryKB open
5. nonliteralValueTesting open
6. openWorldValueTesting open
7. bnodeRef open
]]
KC: 3 of those are re-opened ( punctuationSyntax, bnodeRef,
[missed]).
... the others are new.
Fred: did you see my request for 8 issues?
KC: yes... a lot of that was new to me...
... though I didn't look at it again when I did this issue update,
though 2 of them (punctuationSyntax, nestedOptionals) are related.
-> [16]FredZ 2 Aug
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0048.html
<scribe> ACTION: KC to review FredZ 2 Aug for issue updates
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
Bijan: Fred, is this still exhaustive?
Fred: it was exhaustive at that time.
KC: on your list of 8, #3 is on the WG list as is #6...
... I consider nestedOptionals to include your #6
FredZ: though even in the non-nested case, the issue comes up
KC: ok, so the name is perhaps off by a bit
FredZ: my #7 looks close to something LeeF recently raised.
KC: indeed; let's look at that presently.
BP: there has been discussion of semantic framework, includin the
bug from [a Chilean?]... seems to correspond to Fred's #1
<SimonR> [Chilean == Perez?]
<kendallclark> Yes, "the Chileans" == Perez's comments ;)
<scribe> ACTION: KC to consider a new issue "entailment framework",
somewhat like rdfSemantics, though perhaps different [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Bijan to review FredZ 2 Aug and relate to WG issue
list [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
Bijan: sometimes it helps to have separate messages per issue...
Fred: yes, I did send separate comments and then consolidated them
after a "where are we?" request.
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask who has the ball on each issue?
(perhaps not worth the time)
Simon: [missed?]
<SimonR> I have an outstanding action to do a second review (in
addition to LeeF's) of the r23 vs rq24 revision.
KC: I think punctuationSyntax ball is with Fred/Andy...
<kendallclark>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0
145
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006AprJun/0145
KC: so I hope to hear from Andy on punctuationSyntax
... on optionals... have you (Fred) and Andy explored that?
FredZ: I've written a series of proposals; I think the latest one is
on target...
-> [21]Constructive mapping semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0144.html
^ latest, Fred?
Fred: yes, 0144 is current.
<LeeF> I've read it but haven't internalized it for comment.
<scribe> ACTION: PatH to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics
for SPARQL 18 Aug [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
<bijan> I'll read it
<scribe> ACTION: SimonR to review FredZ Constructive mapping
semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
* RRSAgent records action 4
<bijan> Why not?
<SimonR> I'll queue it to read as soon as I can finish rq24
<scribe> ACTION: bijan to review FredZ Constructive mapping
semantics for SPARQL 18 Aug [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
KC: I think for formsOfDistinct the ball is with bijan...
bijan: I've done what I expect to do on that one [and on
contradictoryKBs]
... design options seem reasonably clear, though I haven't found a
consensus; there are differing preferences.
PatH: are those issues lumped together?
KC: no, they're tracked separately
bijan: I've also done what I expect to do on nonliteralValueTesting
... including test cases.
... I think there's consensus about ill-formed literals, for the
editors to clean up.
... for non-literals, there are varying preferences.
PatH: I see some connection with contradictoryKB [though I don't
mind tracking them separately]
KC: I think the ball is with eric on openWorldValueTesting
<kendallclark> good for the chair to finish the review
KC: on bnodeRef... bijan?
bijan: I'm expecting some feedback from my recent msg
<bijan> Andy feels that they are query scoped
<bijan> or so I understand
heartbeat requirement, time between publications
(the rule is SHOULD publish every spec every 3 months; MUST publish
one)
KC: I thought we published the JSON results WD, but evidently not
so.
Lee: we were close, and then I asked a javascript security question
and I don't recall an answer...
Elias: and there was some discussion of the shortname
<scribe> ACTION: Lee to figure out the next step toward publication
of SPARQL results format er.. JSON in particular [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
<kendallclark> hearbeat requirement:
<kendallclark> you have to publish a draft often enough that the
loop between commenters and comments and responses remains coherent
[trouble scribing and talking...]
bijan: so one possibility is to republish the CR with a SOTD that
says "see also rq24, in progress"
<SimonR> I note that sections 1.2 and 2.5 are still not filled in in
rq24 -- it's not in CR condition yet, as a result.
DanC: I have a mild preference to get the SPARQL results format out
in days and publish rq24 in due course, as long as the group can do
that within, say, 6 weeks
Lee: I think rq24 is headed in the right direction
bijan: I'm prepared to publish rq24 today; I think going to WD and
doing another Last Call is in order.
... we haven't signalled to the wider community the level of open
issues we're considering.
PatH: I concur with Dan; I prefer rq24 to rq23 as our next
publication
bijan: I think it's critical to publish soon.
... sooner than 6 weeks.
Fred: I support going back to WD
<bijan> The other point is that a WD rq24 focuses *us* on that
draft.
quite.
<patH> indeed.
<bijan> For example, I tend to ignore it when raising issues because
it's just a editor's draft, marked as experimental
<LeeF> bijan, as far as I know the point of SimonR and my reviews
are to decide *if* we want to focus on rq24
<bijan> LeeF, great, but I think I'm ready to decide
<bijan> I've heard nothing against it
<bijan> We should be able to decide this by next week
Open World Value Tests
<SimonR> No objection to postponing agendum 3 from me.
<LeeF>
KC: ok to postpone item 3? ok, let's.
Filter evaluation issues
<kendallclark> Lee's message about filter clauses:
<kendallclark>
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0
186.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0186.html
-> [27]order of FILTERs in a BGP? scope of FILTERs? 28 Aug
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0186.html
KC: I don't like the design where you get different results when you
move the FILTER around.
Lee: quite.
<bijan> Good god! I hope Lee is wrong!
[[
Now, we change the position of the FILTER (query #3):
PREFIX: <[28]http://example.org/>
[28] http://example.org/%3E
SELECT *
FROM <[29]http://thefigtrees.net/lee/sw/data/g.n3>
[29] http://thefigtrees.net/lee/sw/data/g.n3%3E
{
FILTER (?t = :s2) .
?s :p1 :o1 .
?t :p2 :o2 .
}
and now we get *zero* solutions.
]]
^ that's the surprising one.
^ the zero solutions are from a running instance of ARQ
<bijan> That's just wrong
<LeeF> the data is:
<LeeF> @prefix : <[30]http://example.org/> .
[30] http://example.org/%3E
<LeeF> :s1 :p1 :o1 .
<LeeF> :s2 :p2 :o2 .
<SimonR> I have to admit, I always assumed FILTERs were just a
conjunction term of the basic graph pattern. This disabuses me of
that happy notion....
<bijan> That looks like broken code to me :)
<patH> me too.
[31]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-bound-query-001
[31] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-bound-query-001
not approved.
Lee: by my reading, the FILTER in dawg-bound-query-001 is connected
to an empty basic graph pattern, so I don't see how those are the
expected results.
<SimonR> It's my longstanding opinion that the nulls generated by
OPTIONAL are not unbounds, so I'm not at all surprised to see them
making no sense at all once they interact with other constructs. :/
Simon: let's connect this test to the optional issue?
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask Fred what answers his constructive
semantics in any of these cases
bijan: ah... then I see an issue separate from optional
[32]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-bound-query-001
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#dawg-bound-query-001
<kendallclark> so the issue is the scope of filter?
<kendallclark> damn
<bijan> ouch
Fred: my '
... my 'constructive..." proposal doesn't address mapping of grammar
to math constructs... but...
<LeeF> SELECT * { { <s> <p> ?o } FILTER (?s > 5) . }
<LeeF> does that FILTER affect anything?
<LeeF> err ?o > 5
<bijan> Hmm. i suspect the chilean algebra might not directly deal
with this
PatH: I recall some discussion of where filters go and being able to
move them after their siblings...
others: yes, I recall that discussion but not a clear outcome
<bijan> Oh, they have filters
Simon: if we try to separate the parts of the query... [scribe is
not quite following...]
<bijan> +1 to pat's last point
<LeeF> I don't think commutativity is really the (only) issue...
<kendallclark> proposals to radically simplify the language are
always in order, IMO
<kendallclark> ACTION: Bijan to see if the Chilean's semantics paper
offers any advice re: filters [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
bijan: I'm interested to review [which paper?] and ...[?]
<SimonR> [paper = `Semantics & Complexity of SPARQL']
KC: I hope to hear from Andy on whether SPARQLER's behaviour here is
as designed.
ADJOURN.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Bijan to review FredZ 2 Aug and relate to WG issue
list [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: bijan to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics
for SPARQL 18 Aug [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Bijan to see if the Chilean's semantics paper offers
any advice re: filters [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: KC to consider a new issue "entailment framework",
somewhat like rdfSemantics, though perhaps different [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: KC to review FredZ 2 Aug for issue updates [recorded
in [38]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Lee to figure out the next step toward publication of
SPARQL results format er.. JSON in particular [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: PatH to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics
for SPARQL 18 Aug [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: SimonR to review FredZ Constructive mapping semantics
for SPARQL 18 Aug [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-dawg-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [42]scribe.perl version 1.127
([43]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/08/29 16:55:13 $
[42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[43] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 16:58:42 UTC