See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: jimkont
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 04 December Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2014/12/04-shapes-minutes.html
<pfps> minutes look fine to me
<SimonSteyskal> +1
Arnaud: Let's approve the minutes of 04/11
<magyarblip> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 04 December Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2014/12/04-shapes-minutes.html
Arnaud: talking about the f2f meeting minutes, need to be confirmed
<pfps> I looked over the F2F minutes, and they look OK by me
<SimonSteyskal> except of the cartman comment
<pfps> The strange interjection could be removed, but its not vital to do so
...: they are not perfect but should be fine and we can make resolutions in the future if needed
<arthur> i am available next week
<pfps> having a meeting next week is fine by me - otherwise we would be off for three weeks
<hsolbrig> I am available
<magyarblip> i am also available
<SimonSteyskal> me2
<kcoyle> 18th ok
<Arnaud> next meeting on 18 December
<ArthurK> +1
...: proposal to make another meeting next week, otherwise the next meeting will be in January
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to comment on pre-selecting scribes and to
...: fixed, next meeting next week
pfps: nice to preselect the scribe for the next meetings
Arnaud: This doesn't always work
pfps: Have a scribe and an alternate
Arnaud: Agree to that
Arnaud: asking for objections on closing actions 3 & 4
... issues 4 & 5 has very similar naming
<SimonSteyskal> one is graph and the other one resource
Arnaud: try and clarify this and be consistent
... Let's close actions 3 & 4
... propose to open issue 5
PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-5: How is a resource associated with shapes?
<pfps> +1
<SimonSteyskal> +1
<SteveS> +1
arthur: talking about links between wiki and issue tracker
RESOLUTION: Open ISSUE-5: How is a resource associated with shapes?
pfps: the difference is about associating graphs vs resources with shapes
... someone created wikipages for issues 1 & 2
Arnaud: this was on good intent and a wiki page is usually a good way to capture the issue
<pfps> the terminology for issue 3 and issue 4 is not the best, but the wg can polish later
Arnaud: proposed to freeze the user stories
... people should commit more time to this WG
... prefer to have a single document with both user stories & requirements
pfps: we have enough user stories
... it's good time to resolve them. From now on new stories have to be proposed to be included
arnaud: Peter is right on this
michael: I agree with peter. Will add a new story soon
arnaud: try to link user stories with requirements
<pfps> if michael has a new story, add in a stub and augment later
arnaud: agree but it's too early, we need more material
arthur: we have a lot of raw material already
<pfps> I'm proposing that additions should no longer be made unless the WG consents, except for the additions that have already been mentioned
arthur: give freedom to editors and we can all review later
arnaud: I agree
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes
hsolbrig: cannot access the wiki
arnaud: we need volunteers for the requirements documents
<michel> +1 agree on closing user story submissions before holidays
arnaud: Eric ported the DC requirements in a json file
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Rawreqs
<Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/rdfvalreqs/
arnaud: there are browser compatibility issues
... and hard to edit
... switch to a flat structure
arthur: leave the DC requirements as is and focus on the spec
arnaud: they are for background information for the document we will produce
<pfps> +1 to using a wiki page for requirements, and I'll produce an initial version
arnaud: a volunteer to port the DC stories n a wiki page
pfps: I can give it a shot
... I'll make a draft and see how it goes
<pfps> ACTION: pfps to new wiki page for requirements (probably only with a few to start) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/12/11-shapes-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - New wiki page for requirements (probably only with a few to start) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2014-12-18].
arthur: What is the difference with the DC user stories and the ones Karen posted on the mailing list
kcoyl: they come from the same database
<kcoyle> http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/
kcoyl: and we are still editing the requirements
... we also have a categoriazation
Arnaud: we renamed entailment regime to inferencing according to Peter's suggestion
<SimonSteyskal> i just want to point out that I thought we will create a wikipage for every issue so I did that..
<SimonSteyskal> but I'm totally fine with deleting it ;)
arthur: I like the idea to separate the inferencing and constraint checking
pfps: if we haven't decided on SPARQL we shouldn't decide on this
<hknublau> +q
pfps: this is a decision that has to be made with entailment regimes
hknublau: I agree with Arthur
... many databases have this option (e.g. Jena)
arnaud: I set this issue because we need to agree on this
arthur: there is a little impricit inferencing on SPIN and we have to be precise
<hknublau> +q
hknublau: We use some inferencing to figure out which constraints to run but not after
... eitherway SPARQL allows property paths
... from our experience this is sufficient
arnaud: Peter tell us what is your issue with the wiki page
simonsteyskal: I tried to scan the mailing list and create the wiki page
arthur: it is different topic
<pfps> the wiki page has at least two issues: the title is not correct with respect to the contents, and the contents are not correct with respect to the issue
Arnaud: Let's write what type of inferencing is used for each proposed solution
arthur: different endpoints might provide different entailment regimes
<arthur> the entailment regime is given in the SPARQL service description document. see http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/
<kcoyle> thanks
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting