<LeeF> Present: Lee, Steve, Luke, Andy, ivanh, Orri, dnewman2, kasei, chimezie, john-l, ericp, Simon

13:51:19 <trackbot> Meeting: SPARQL Working Group Teleconference

13:51:21 <trackbot>  Date: 14 April 2009

13:53:40 <LeeF> Regrets: Axel, Alex, Kjetil, Jacek

13:53:43 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF

13:54:47 <AndyS> Agenda AOB request - F2F1 - We seem to have 5 Boston, 7 Bristol.

13:56:31 <LeeF> AndyS, ack

13:56:38 <Zakim> SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM has now started

14:02:29 <ivanh> scribenick: ivanh

14:02:38 <ivanh> scribe: ivanh

14:03:24 <chimezie> zakim, unmute me

14:03:59 <ivanh> Topic: administravia

14:04:05 <kasei> zakim, mute me

14:04:05 <Zakim> kasei was already muted, kasei

14:04:09 <LeeF> -> http://dristachi.site/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2009-04-14 agenda for today

14:04:24 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Approve minutes at http://dristachi.site/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-07

14:04:26 <Zakim> -Lee_Feigenbaum

14:04:39 <Zakim> +EricP

14:04:51 <Zakim> +Lee_Feigenbaum

14:05:20 <Zakim> + +1.479.864.aaee

14:06:06 <ivanh> RESOLVED: Approve minutes at http://dristachi.site/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-04-07

14:06:15 <ivanh> topic: next meeting

14:06:20 <ivanh> next tuesday, this time

14:06:32 <ivanh> regrets next week: orri, ivanh

14:06:55 <ivanh> lee: any report of our liaisons?

14:07:14 <ivanh> AndyS: i believe sparql and owl will ask us to review rdf:text

14:07:28 <AndyS> s/sparql/rif/

14:07:38 <ivanh> LeeF: what we said that when the text is ready we will send it to the mailing list and see if anybody is interested

14:07:47 <ivanh> Topic: rechartering issue

14:08:47 <ivanh> lee: my understanding is that it should not affect our work at all

14:09:14 <ivanh> ... this may be naive or optimistic, but we should be able to do the same work the same way

14:10:24 <LeeF> ivanh: the way the charter is done today is extremely open-ended, and companies that really want to consider all their patent issues cannot make any patent disclosures right now since nothing specifies what will be part of a Recommendation

14:10:40 <LeeF> ... we received remarks from members making us consider this

14:11:13 <LeeF> ... we have sent out a rechartering proposal to the AC that charters this group to produce a non-Rec track document (WG Note) called features & rationale that lists all the features we want in SPARQL

14:11:18 <LeeF> ... formal lifespan is through the end of July

14:11:51 <LeeF> ... in practice, group keeps doing what it is doing, but needs to publish this WG Note before end of July

14:12:03 <chimezie> zakim, mute me

14:12:03 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted

14:12:21 <LeeF> ... as soon as we publish a first public working draft of requirements (hopefully 2nd half of May), we would immediately do a 2nd rechartering that lists the features as part of the charter

14:12:31 <SteveH> q+ to ask about process and schedule

14:13:10 <LeeF> ... if new charter proposal is done by end of May, it would be official by end of June, so from beginning-to-mid of July the group could be active under the second charter

14:13:43 <LeeF> ... no problem if group begins to really work on specification work in May - the only thing the group should not do is publish a First Public Working Draft because that is what leads to patent issues

14:13:56 <LeeF> ... no problem with editors' drafts

14:14:24 <LeeF> ack SteveH

14:14:24 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask about process and schedule

14:15:17 <LeeF> SteveH: my understanding around Lee's intentions was to iterate on the process - consider other things as time permits

14:15:27 <LeeF> ... but now we no longer have that flexibility

14:15:47 <ericP> i don't think we'll be any more bound later on than we would be in any other WG

14:16:11 <LeeF> ... if charter is bound, we can't go ahead and talk about details because that would be outside the charter

14:17:07 <ericP> q+ to say that this ends up being like any other WG

14:17:48 <LeeF> LeeF: intention is to reach consensus on 'required' and 'time permitting' deliverables, and then include them all in the new charter

14:18:03 <AndyS> q+ to aks about IP review at WD stages

14:18:39 <kasei> is everyone else hearing lots of (mobile?) interference on the call, or is it just me?

14:18:52 <SimonS> me too.

14:19:41 <ivanh> ack ericP

14:19:41 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that this ends up being like any other WG

14:20:06 <LeeF> ericp: we have patent policy since companies want to know what they're working on - the charter for the 2nd phase of the group ends up being like any other group

14:21:16 <ivanh> ack AndyS

14:21:16 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to aks about IP review at WD stages

14:21:47 <LeeF> AndyS: HP was quite well aware of this issue and noted that there is a call for IP disclosures when a FPWD is published

14:22:28 <LeeF> ivanh: Acknowledged; other groups are less flexible with respect to knowing potential IP issues

14:22:35 <LeeF> AndyS: will we all need to rejoin the WG?

14:22:39 <SteveH> wondering what the risk of not being rechartered is

14:23:04 <LeeF> ericP: I believe so.

14:23:40 <LeeF> AndyS: I don't think I could justify the new charter within my organization

14:31:05 <AndyS> s/I don't think I could justify the new charter within my organization/I don't think I could justify the nwe charter without internal review within my organsiation/

14:24:29 <LeeF> ericP: I think for phase I we could continue the existing membership, but for phase II people would need to re-join

14:24:46 <SteveH> q+

14:24:50 <LeeF> AndyS: if there's no grace period it will be very rough

14:25:23 <LeeF> AndyS: concern about publication - editors' drafts have been publicly available in the past - the difference between editors' draft being publicly available and FPWD is not that big

14:25:43 <LeeF> ivanh: difference is in commitment from WG and IP commitment

14:26:00 <LeeF> AndyS: I'm not sure if putting information in public exposes the editor's organization

14:27:05 <chimezie> zakim, mute me

14:27:05 <Zakim> chimezie was already muted, chimezie

14:27:07 <ivanh> ack SteveH

14:27:17 <LeeF> ivanh: if work is done on wiki as joint WG work, might not be an issue

14:27:43 <LeeF> SteveH: is there middle ground with a formal pause between 2 phases rather than a full rechartering? is this new standard operating procedure?

14:28:03 <Zakim> + +1.415.371.aaff

14:28:09 <LeeF> ivanh: this occurred because the initial charter was too broad

14:28:19 <LeeF> ... might have been better with initial work as a short-lived XG

14:29:14 <LeeF> SteveH: it's not a guarantee that phase II will happen (get rechartered

14:29:20 <LeeF> s/rechartered/rechartered)/

14:29:36 <LeeF> ivanh: yes, that's a risk, we tried to avoid it but it didn't work out

14:29:48 <LeeF> zakim, aaff is dnewman2

14:29:49 <Zakim> +dnewman2; got it

14:30:15 <LeeF> SteveH: what happens if the AC rejects the rechartering?

14:30:42 <LeeF> ericP: The Director has some leeway. Given the current state of affairs, I don't see this as a significant risk

14:36:01 <ericP> AndyS, SteveH, would a note to public-rdf-dawg would have make this better?

14:36:06 <SteveH> yes

14:36:30 <AndyS> No

14:37:07 <AndyS> Notifying current members before it went wide would have been helpful.  Notify - not discuss.

14:37:23 <SteveH> yes, dicsussion is not neccesary

14:37:24 <ericP> (there's also the question of what volume of mutterings consitute time to alarm folks)

14:37:34 <ericP> s/consitute/consitutes/

14:38:14 <ivanh> topic: features discussions

14:38:20 <ivanh> subtopic: parameterized inference

<LeeF> summary: initial straw poll gives (+/0/-): 4/3/5

14:38:22 <LeeF> -> http://dristachi.site/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ParameterizedInference

Lee Feigenbaum: -> http://dristachi.site/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ParameterizedInference ←

14:38:26 <chimezie> zakim, unmute me

Chimezie Ogbuji: zakim, unmute me ←

14:38:26 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie should no longer be muted ←

14:38:39 <ivanh> LeeF: there has been a bunch of discussions on that

Lee Feigenbaum: there has been a bunch of discussions on that ←

14:38:54 <ivanh> chimezie, can you summarize?

chimezie, can you summarize? ←

14:39:25 <ivanh> chimezie: the link has a descriptioin for the general requirements

Chimezie Ogbuji: the link has a descriptioin for the general requirements ←

14:39:50 <ivanh> .. .last week we proposed the parametrization was used to describe the inference regime

.. .last week we proposed the parametrization was used to describe the inference regime ←

14:40:00 <ivanh> ... this would go beyond owl

... this would go beyond owl ←

14:40:11 <ivanh> ... the wiki also mentions merging datasets

... the wiki also mentions merging datasets ←

14:40:16 <LeeF> q+ to ask if merging datasets is the same as composite dataset issue

Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to ask if merging datasets is the same as composite dataset issue ←

14:40:39 <ivanh> ... from ontologies or rules into the graph

... from ontologies or rules into the graph ←

14:40:51 <ivanh> ... that overlaps with the previous feature

... that overlaps with the previous feature ←

14:41:06 <ivanh> ... there was a possibility to break this thing into a separate feature

... there was a possibility to break this thing into a separate feature ←

14:41:28 <ivanh> ... the last thing is to parametrize whether an ent. regime would give all possible answers or not, for example

... the last thing is to parametrize whether an ent. regime would give all possible answers or not, for example ←

14:41:39 <ivanh> ... the general idea is to parametrize the possible answers

... the general idea is to parametrize the possible answers ←

14:42:06 <ivanh> LeeF: is the topic of merging the same as composite datatypes

Lee Feigenbaum: is the topic of merging the same as composite datasets ←

14:42:08 <AndyS> q+ to ask about protocol implications

Andy Seaborne: q+ to ask about protocol implications ←

14:42:12 <LeeF> s/datatypes/datasets

14:42:28 <ivanh> chimezie: yes, but if you want an additional answers, do you have to bring the data in, for example

Chimezie Ogbuji: yes, but if you want an additional answers, do you have to bring the data in, for example ←

14:42:31 <ivanh> q+

q+ ←

14:43:07 <ivanh> LeeF: is it fair to say that the issue is giving all possible answers vs. not is a detail that can be worked out later, or has to discussed upfront

Lee Feigenbaum: is it fair to say that the issue is giving all possible answers vs. not is a detail that can be worked out later, or has to discussed upfront ←

14:43:37 <SteveH> Zakim, who's talking

Steve Harris: Zakim, who's talking ←

14:43:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's talking', SteveH

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who's talking', SteveH ←

14:43:38 <ivanh> chimezie: i do not think we have to answer this question now

Chimezie Ogbuji: i do not think we have to answer this question now ←

14:43:50 <LeeF> ack leef

Lee Feigenbaum: ack leef ←

14:43:50 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask if merging datasets is the same as composite dataset issue

Zakim IRC Bot: LeeF, you wanted to ask if merging datasets is the same as composite dataset issue ←

14:43:52 <LeeF> ack AndyS

Lee Feigenbaum: ack AndyS ←

14:43:53 <john-l> Zakim, please mute me

John Clark: Zakim, please mute me ←

14:43:53 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about protocol implications

Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to ask about protocol implications ←

14:43:55 <SimonS> q+

Simon Schenk: q+ ←

14:43:56 <Zakim> john-l should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: john-l should now be muted ←

14:44:06 <ivanh> AndyS: this looks like describing the environment where the query executes

Andy Seaborne: this looks like describing the environment where the query executes ←

14:44:15 <ivanh> ... do we want that to be in the protocol, too

... do we want that to be in the protocol, too ←

14:45:07 <ivanh> chimezie: i believe that the environment is for a set of query?

Chimezie Ogbuji: i believe that the environment is for a set of query? ←

14:45:35 <ivanh> AndyS: al lthe examples have a syntax for replacing datasets

Andy Seaborne: al lthe examples have a syntax for replacing datasets ←

14:45:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see dnewman2, ericP, LukeWM_, SteveH, ivanh, SimonS, Zakim, RRSAgent, chimezie, kasei, AndyS, AndyS_, LeeF, trackbot, john-l

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see dnewman2, ericP, LukeWM_, SteveH, ivanh, SimonS, Zakim, RRSAgent, chimezie, kasei, AndyS, AndyS_, LeeF, trackbot, john-l ←

14:45:41 <LeeF> zakim, mute aaee

Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, mute aaee ←

14:45:41 <Zakim> +1.479.864.aaee should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: +1.479.864.aaee should now be muted ←

14:45:48 <ivanh> ... could one consider protocol entries instead of the query

... could one consider protocol entries instead of the query ←

14:45:55 <SimonS> q-

Simon Schenk: q- ←

14:46:01 <ivanh> chimezie: you mean being in the http request body?

Chimezie Ogbuji: you mean being in the http request body? ←

14:46:26 <ivanh> AndyS: we have default graph uri in the query, something like that ought to be considered

Andy Seaborne: we have default graph uri in the query, something like that ought to be considered ←

14:46:28 <LeeF> res discussions

Lee Feigenbaum: res discussions ←

14:46:47 <LeeF> q?

Lee Feigenbaum: q? ←

14:46:47 <ivanh> chimezie: it would be a similar request adn we should probably consider that

Chimezie Ogbuji: it would be a similar request adn we should probably consider that ←

14:46:59 <LeeF> ack ivanh

Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivanh ←

14:47:27 <AndyS> I see two features - inference control and dataset composition.  Related but different.

Andy Seaborne: I see two features - inference control and dataset composition. Related but different. ←

14:47:45 <LeeF> AndyS, I agree with you - there is also service description, but we've considered that on its own already

Lee Feigenbaum: AndyS, I agree with you - there is also service description, but we've considered that on its own already ←

14:47:47 <SimonS> ack.

Simon Schenk: ack. ←

14:48:22 <AndyS> Yes - service description is the service controlling things - this is query controlling things.

Andy Seaborne: Yes - service description is the service controlling things - this is query controlling things. ←

14:48:34 <LeeF> AndyS, agreed.

Lee Feigenbaum: AndyS, agreed. ←

14:49:34 <ivanh> LeeF: i see two different things for the 'vote', inference control and dataset composition

Lee Feigenbaum: i see two different things for the 'vote', inference control and dataset composition ←

14:49:55 <chimezie> zakim, mute me

Chimezie Ogbuji: zakim, mute me ←

14:49:55 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie should now be muted ←

14:50:07 <ivanh> let us do a sraw poll on the inference control/description

let us do a sraw poll on the inference control/description ←

14:50:45 <SimonS> +q

Simon Schenk: +q ←

14:50:49 <ivanh> ... whether it is on the protocol or the language level are details, we should have a poll on whether this particular feature is to be considered

... whether it is on the protocol or the language level are details, we should have a poll on whether this particular feature is to be considered ←

14:50:54 <LeeF> ack SimonS

Lee Feigenbaum: ack SimonS ←

14:51:08 <chimezie> zakim, unmute me

Chimezie Ogbuji: zakim, unmute me ←

14:51:08 <Zakim> chimezie should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie should no longer be muted ←

14:51:12 <ivanh> SimonS: i think this is useful, but it is very fuzzy, there are so many different things one could do

Simon Schenk: i think this is useful, but it is very fuzzy, there are so many different things one could do ←

14:51:23 <ivanh> ... we need clarification before working on the details

... we need clarification before working on the details ←

14:51:47 <ivanh> ... i have the feeling that we are mixing different things here, bringing in rules for example

... i have the feeling that we are mixing different things here, bringing in rules for example ←

14:51:56 <ivanh> ... in principle I think this is useful

... in principle I think this is useful ←

14:52:12 <ivanh> LeeF: any other comments?

Lee Feigenbaum: any other comments? ←

14:52:14 <ivanh> ....

.... ←

14:52:16 <ivanh> ....

.... ←

14:52:20 <SteveH> -1, too early, not enough experience

Steve Harris: -1, too early, not enough experience ←

14:52:21 <ericP> -1 # fear it would distract from my highest priorities: update and lists

Eric Prud'hommeaux: -1 # fear it would distract from my highest priorities: update and lists ←

14:52:33 <kasei> 0

Gregory Williams: 0 ←

14:52:35 <ivanh> +1

+1 ←

14:52:35 <john-l> 0

John Clark: 0 ←

14:52:36 <chimezie> +1 extends usefulness of SPARQL

Chimezie Ogbuji: +1 extends usefulness of SPARQL ←

14:52:40 <dnewman2> +1 useful feature

David Newman: +1 useful feature ←

14:52:51 <AndyS> -1, too early not enough implementation experience. Use extensions

Andy Seaborne: -1, too early not enough implementation experience. Use extensions ←

14:53:01 <chimezie> zakim, mute me

Chimezie Ogbuji: zakim, mute me ←

14:53:02 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie should now be muted ←

14:53:06 <LeeF> Orri: +1 (will not be trivial, but important)

Orri Erling: +1 (will not be trivial, but important) [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

14:53:09 <SimonS> -1 useful, but too fuzzy. Other priorities

Simon Schenk: -1 useful, but too fuzzy. Other priorities ←

14:53:12 <LeeF> 0

Lee Feigenbaum: 0 ←

14:53:23 <Zakim> - +1.479.864.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.479.864.aaee ←

14:53:31 <LukeWM_> -1 seems vague at the moment

Luke Wilson-Mawer: -1 seems vague at the moment ←

14:53:43 <ivanh> q+

q+ ←

14:54:03 <chimezie> zakim unmute me

Chimezie Ogbuji: zakim unmute me ←

14:54:04 <Zakim> + +1.479.864.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.479.864.aagg ←

14:54:36 <SteveH> q+

Steve Harris: q+ ←

14:54:43 <ivanh> ack ivanh

ack ivanh ←

14:54:45 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+ ←

14:55:01 <chimezie> q+ to respond to LeeF

Chimezie Ogbuji: q+ to respond to LeeF ←

14:55:28 <dnewman2> +q

David Newman: +q ←

14:55:32 <LeeF> ack SteveH

Lee Feigenbaum: ack SteveH ←

14:55:44 <ivanh> SteveH: people have been doing this for some time without this feature

Steve Harris: people have been doing this for some time without this feature ←

14:55:45 <LeeF> ivanh: how is SPARQL/OWL useful without this?

Ivan Herman: how is SPARQL/OWL useful without this? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

14:56:08 <ivanh> ... people have been doing that for a while

... people have been doing that for a while ←

14:56:16 <AndyS> ack AndyS

Andy Seaborne: ack AndyS ←

14:56:26 <LeeF> LeeF: there are other ways (rather than specifying in the query) to know that you are querying an endpoint that does SPARQL/OWL

Lee Feigenbaum: there are other ways (rather than specifying in the query) to know that you are querying an endpoint that does SPARQL/OWL [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

14:56:31 <ivanh> AndyS: much the same thing as SteveH..

Andy Seaborne: much the same thing as SteveH.. ←

14:58:31 <LeeF> ack chimezie

Lee Feigenbaum: ack chimezie ←

14:58:33 <Zakim> chimezie, you wanted to respond to LeeF

Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie, you wanted to respond to LeeF ←

14:58:47 <ivanh> chimezie: i think there is a confusion what this suggests and what bijan suggested

Chimezie Ogbuji: i think there is a confusion what this suggests and what bijan suggested ←

14:59:06 <ivanh> ... the only thing is which particular entailment regime you use

... the only thing is which particular entailment regime you use ←

14:59:36 <ivanh> LeeF: my problem was the maturity of the different entailement regimes

Lee Feigenbaum: my problem was not the maturity of the different entailement regimes ←

14:59:56 <ivanh> ... the interplay with the query language, how would you put it into the query language

... the interplay with the query language, how would you put it into the query language ←

15:00:08 <LeeF> s/was the maturity/was not the maturity

15:00:10 <LeeF> zakim, mute Orri

Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, mute Orri ←

15:00:10 <Zakim> Orri should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Orri should now be muted ←

15:00:24 <ivanh> (scribe had to give up)

(scribe had to give up) ←

15:01:00 <ivanh> chimezie: if you separate the inclusion of ent regime from the answer itself,

Chimezie Ogbuji: if you separate the inclusion of ent regime from the answer itself, ←

15:01:11 <ivanh> ... we need to standardize this

... we need to standardize this ←

15:01:27 <ivanh> ... otherwise we cannot move one query from one place to the other

... otherwise we cannot move one query from one place to the other ←

15:01:32 <ivanh> q+

q+ ←

15:01:41 <LeeF> ack dnewman2

Lee Feigenbaum: ack dnewman2 ←

15:01:43 <LeeF> ack dnewman

Lee Feigenbaum: ack dnewman ←

15:02:16 <ivanh> dnewman2: end user prospective, we are talking about using sparql to dynamically trigger inferencing at the point of the query

David Newman: end user prospective, we are talking about using sparql to dynamically trigger inferencing at the point of the query ←

15:02:22 <ivanh> ... that to me is a very useful feature

... that to me is a very useful feature ←

15:02:35 <chimezie> Seems like there is 1) Which entailment regime should answers be conditioned on 2) Is this specified in the query langauge and/or the protocol 3) how are datasets composed

Chimezie Ogbuji: Seems like there is 1) Which entailment regime should answers be conditioned on 2) Is this specified in the query langauge and/or the protocol 3) how are datasets composed ←

15:02:38 <ivanh> ... we have come across this request, and it is very high on our wish list

... we have come across this request, and it is very high on our wish list ←

15:02:44 <chimezie> zakim, mute me

Chimezie Ogbuji: zakim, mute me ←

15:02:44 <Zakim> chimezie should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: chimezie should now be muted ←

15:02:45 <ivanh> q-

q- ←

15:02:57 <ericP> dnewman2, would being able to choose between two endpoints which offered no entailment and entailmentX suffice for your needs?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: dnewman2, would being able to choose between two endpoints which offered no entailment and entailmentX suffice for your needs? ←

15:03:14 <ivanh> q+

q+ ←

15:03:29 <chimezie> I don't think SPARQL-DL requires (USING ... for example)

Chimezie Ogbuji: I don't think SPARQL-DL requires (USING ... for example) ←

15:03:47 <SteveH> what about using entailments in some parts of the query and not others for example. is an example of something that curretn systems do, but this proposal does not address

Steve Harris: what about using entailments in some parts of the query and not others for example. is an example of something that curretn systems do, but this proposal does not address ←

15:03:48 <chimezie> it just expects additional answers to queries WRT OWL-DL entailment

Chimezie Ogbuji: it just expects additional answers to queries WRT OWL-DL entailment ←

15:04:12 <chimezie> SPARQL-DL being Bijan's proposal

Chimezie Ogbuji: SPARQL-DL being Bijan's proposal ←

15:04:48 <LeeF> ivanh: Bijan's proposal [SPARQL/OWL] describes what answers to expect when querying under DL entailment

Ivan Herman: Bijan's proposal [SPARQL/OWL] describes what answers to expect when querying under DL entailment [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ] ←

15:05:04 <LeeF> ... there are other entailment regimes

Lee Feigenbaum: ... there are other entailment regimes ←

15:05:07 <ericP> foaf-smushing is a high-profile candidate entailment

Eric Prud'hommeaux: foaf-smushing is a high-profile candidate entailment ←

15:05:11 <LeeF> ... no answer for how to choose it

Lee Feigenbaum: ... no answer for how to choose it ←

15:05:20 <chimezie> SteveH: I'm not sure how you can specify the conditions on a query at such a level of granularity (i.e., specific parts of the query)

Chimezie Ogbuji: SteveH, I'm not sure how you can specify the conditions on a query at such a level of granularity (i.e., specific parts of the query) ←

15:05:20 <LeeF> ... one possibility is multiple query endpoints

Lee Feigenbaum: ... one possibility is multiple query endpoints ←

15:05:31 <LeeF> s/SteveH:/SteveH,/

15:05:45 <SteveH> chimezie, well, jena does that now I believe, and my old systems did too

Steve Harris: chimezie, well, jena does that now I believe, and my old systems did too ←

15:06:01 <SteveH> chimezie, it's not really that hard, and quite essential

Steve Harris: chimezie, it's not really that hard, and quite essential ←

15:06:04 <SimonS> we do multiple graphs instead of multiple endpoints.

Simon Schenk: we do multiple graphs instead of multiple endpoints. ←

15:06:13 <SteveH> ditto

Steve Harris: ditto ←

15:07:30 <AndyS> ditto

Andy Seaborne: ditto ←

15:08:07 <SimonS> Views can then be used to combine the results from multiple graphs.

Simon Schenk: Views can then be used to combine the results from multiple graphs. ←

15:08:22 <SteveH> ivanh, the proposal where you give an entailment regime for the whole query is sufficiently behind the state of the art that I don't believe it covers the common use-cases

Steve Harris: ivanh, the proposal where you give an entailment regime for the whole query is sufficiently behind the state of the art that I don't believe it covers the common use-cases ←

15:08:53 <ivanh> SteveH, let us discuss this on the list. I may not understand the issue then

SteveH, let us discuss this on the list. I may not understand the issue then ←

15:11:28 <chimezie> I guess I'm more concerned about how the user specifies exactly the semantics  of 'partial' entailments like that, not so much how they are implemented

Chimezie Ogbuji: I guess I'm more concerned about how the user specifies exactly the semantics of 'partial' entailments like that, not so much how they are implemented ←

<LeeF> Adjourned.

Lee Feigenbaum: Adjourned. ←

Formatted by CommonScribe Show Interleaved IRC Text

---