See also: IRC log
<Arnaud> you beat me to it!
<Arnaud> if only zakim would let me in...
<Arnaud> zakim hung up on me, not very friendly!
<pfps> is there a pointer to the ShEx tutorial from the WG wiki?
i can scribe
<scribe> scribe: kcoyle
<SimonSteyskal> http://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html
<pfps> minutes look fine
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 12 December 2014 approved
Arnaud: next call Jan 15
Arnaud: no open actions, but lots of issues
... anyone can raise an issue; group decides whether to open or not
... last call agreed to freeze user stories at this time; but there are issues, which have been raised
... proposes that we accept and open issues; maybe not have to discuss every one; stories authors can respond
... suggested process: owners of stories should be first to address issue and offer resolution
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask whether we are in the "User Stories" section of the meeting
<Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/raised
PROPOSED: open in bulk the 15 raised issues on User Stories
<pfps> I'm fine with opening all these issues :-)
ArthurRyman: Q: grandfathering in these issues?
Arnaud: without getting into detail; do we accept these as open issues?
<pfps> I think that what is under consideration here is whether there is some reason not to open these issues.
<ArthurRyman> +1
Arnaud: issues are open unless there is an objection to one
<SimonSteyskal> +1
<pfps> +1
+1
<AxelPolleres> +1
<labra> +1
<ericP> +1
<SteveS> +1
<Dimitris> +1
<ericP> +ε
RESOLUTION: open in bulk the 15 raised issues on User Stories
Arnaud: Owners now need to address issue and see if it can be resolved
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about the importance of the user stories and the important of getting the user stories fixed quickly
pfps: Process is dragging on; would be good to get user stories in publishable shape by next week; then editor of that doc can complete task
... #2 user stories are important; group has to address that user story
... otherwise story could be vetoed
Arnaud: No editor yet assigned/volunteered. Wiki page is previsional document that will need to be edited and formatted
... some of the issues may be addressed by the editor
+q
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to put forward a modest proposal
<ArthurRyman> in the interest of making progress, I will volunteer in the absense of others
pfps: will volunteer, as long as only approved things ever get in it
<SimonSteyskal> i volunteer (maybe under the supervision of axel) ;)
ericP: what does approved mean? will editor be gatekeeper of content and edits?
pfps: if a story has comment on it, it is not finished
... wiki can have more than the finished note
<ericP> kcoyle: i think i could edit this doc but i don't know about the formatting. example?
kcoyle: do we have an example?
ericP: two levels: layout, and mechanics of editing (html? restack?) structure: look in TR pages for interesting examples
<pfps> my editing philosophy would be to not include any at risk stuff - everything in the note is at risk in some sense, as we don't know what is possible yet
ericP: this doc will probably be use cases and requirements; in the end we'll want to connect those
AxelPolleres: normal to have sections in working docs that have 'at risk' info
pfps: adding to doc eliminates reason to finish stores
... stories
<AxelPolleres> fair enough.
<AxelPolleres> (for this specific document)
<AxelPolleres> Simon also volunteered, right?
<SimonSteyskal> yes
<SteveS> I can help as well, recently doing some LDP drafts
<SteveS> with the process and using the tools, that is
<SimonSteyskal> but I'm as experienced as karen ;)
<pfps> in some sense, the editors get to decide what information goes in the document and how it is presented
Arnaud: Karen and Simon will be editors
I'm fine with html
<SimonSteyskal> but I can query Axel as my knowledge base
<pfps> I've come to like ReSpec much better than I thought that I would :-)
<SteveS> in LDP we used ReSpec to do the LDP-UCR doc, located at: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-ucr.html
<pfps> Eric is a *resource* for the WG - we should feel free to (ab)use him
<scribe> ACTION: Simon and Karen will be the editors. They will develop the document by ?? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-shapes-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - And karen will be the editors. they will develop the document by ?? [on Simon Steyskal - due 2015-01-15].
Arnaud: process: only transfer things with no issue open
pfps: if editors wish a different process, I'm fine. But everyoone needs to get their stories into good shape
Arnaud: story owners need to address issues
ArthurRyman: How do you respond to an issue?
Arnaud: you can edit the wiki directly
<pfps> There should be firm understanding that at some point only clean user stories will be in the note.
Arnaud: if you have addressed the issue, mark the issue as pending in issue list
pfps: also a good idea to respond to the email to make visible that you hav edone something
... not clear if editing issue sends an email
Arnaud: we have long list of proposed requirements (done by Holger); need people to review requirements and endorse them
... http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements
<pfps> I see that there are third endorsements where the third endorser has not changed the status
Arnaud: added status line for names
<pfps> It's not too bad scanning the document, looking for nice colours.
Arnaud: tag requirements status using color
... more activity on this needed!
... add your name to the ones you endorse/think are important
<scribe> ACTION: everyone endorse requirements in list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-shapes-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Error finding 'everyone'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/users>.
<pfps> There is no reason not to have a first version of the US&R documents being only User Stories
Arnaud: use cases and requirements may be same document
<ericP> Dimitris, can you look at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S7:_Different_shapes_at_different_times.2C_or_different_access_at_the_same_time. to see if your comment applies also to https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:_Issue_repository ?
<ericP> pfps propsed deleting and i'd second if that didn't leave your text homeless.
<pfps> I'm willing to put together a wiki page that has this information
Arnaud: pfps: how do proposals function at lower level? This got no response. We should add a wiki page for this type of description
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to voice some confusion
<Dimitris> ericP, yes I deleted the comment
ericP: During the chartering process asked questions about semantics of shape expressions
<Arnaud> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2014Dec/0251.html
ericP: not sure how to square that with email questions
pfps: no sure what shape expressions are supposed to validate; not clear where resource shapes validate
... for all proposals need a story that explains what they are trying to do, functionally
Arnaud: this will probably bring up questions of terminology
... look at Peter's email and try to describe something similar for their own proposal
pfps: this is your chance to put your technology forward for discussion; for all technologies, even those not included in final
Arnaud: like the elevator speech for your proposal
<scribe> ACTION: Eric, for ShEx [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-shapes-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Eric,'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/users>.
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur for resource shapes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-shapes-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - For resource shapes [on Arthur Ryman - due 2015-01-15].
ArthurRyman: to pfps, please clarify what is unclear
pfps: for OWL, take RDF graph and colleciton of constraints that are validated against RDF graph
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say i believe pfps's examples are focused on discovery
ericP: the issue here is that Peter's doc is focused on discovery; other schema languages are agnostic to discovery
pfps: has to be something that a program can 'have in hand'
ericP: ShEx and ResShapes very similar in how this works
ArthurRyman: confirms th eprocessing model: have node, apply ResShape
... volunteers to write formal semantics of group decision
<scribe> ACTION: Dimitris write up RDFUnit processing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-shapes-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Write up rdfunit processing [on Dimitris Kontokostas - due 2015-01-15].
<ericP> pfps, do you see http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo?schemaURL=test/Issue-inheritance/schema.shex&dataURL=test/Issue-inheritance/pass-user-employee.ttl&colorize=true as giving you a thumbs up?
Arnaud: arthur and peter were to figure this out
... can we conclude what the email thread brought up
pfps: pfps and ArthurRyman have clarified differences in understanding
... that concludes what resource shapes mean by resource
ericP: what do we call nodes in graph, and what do we call non-literal?
hknublau: I believe that there is no problem; in the specifications we should consistently used "IRI or blank node"; not use "resource" because overloaded
... other open issue is what to do with URI rdfs:resouce as range of property
... delay decision until we have a specific language candidate, because that will change the context
pfps: disagree. group should use the word resource as used in w3c docs, and rdfs:resource as in RDF docs
<hknublau> +q
hknublau: the terminology that is ten years old has not passed the test of time; we should not continue with things that do not work, have not become mainstream
... a new language is opportunity to propose a more intuitive use, with explanation of context
... propose that rdf:Resource should exclude literals
<AxelPolleres> holger, well, the most recent RDF spec is from feb 2014… I don’t think we can/should change terminology from there, if so, that would have been an issue to be raised in the RDF 1.1 WG
<AxelPolleres> oops, I broke up...
AxelPolleres: there is a group looking at terminology
<AxelPolleres> wanted to say: don’t think it’s our task to redefine RDF terminology.
<AxelPolleres> that has been done by the RDF 1.1 group, which closed its work a year ago.
pfps: RDF 1.1 declined to change terminology; this should be out of scope for this group
<AxelPolleres> (not 10 years ago)
<pfps> I'm not happy using resource in the way that it is defined by W3C, but I'm not going to use it in other ways.
hknublau: still think it will depend on the context of the solution; defer for later
pfps: would never agree to using RDF terminology in a way different from RDF standard; no need to wait
<AxelPolleres> this said, if we can find some *really simpler* terminology, and explain in the doc how it relates to RDF standard terminology, I have no objections, but I am not sure this is what we are chartered for.
<pfps> Sure, we could have something like constraints:whatever
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting