See also: IRC log
<Labra> ??P3 is labra
<scribe> scribe: BartvanLeeuwen
subtopic: Minutes from previous meetings
http://www.w3.org/2015/01/22-shapes-minutes.html
http://www.w3.org/2015/01/29-shapes-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 22 January approved
RESOLUTION: Minutes of 29 January approved
subTopic: F2F
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/F2F2
Arnaud: We are still looking for someone to pickup the bill for food / drinks
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/pendingreview
Issue-9
<trackbot> Issue-9 -- S7 does not appear to have a story -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/9
peter: delete the story
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-9, deleting S7
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-9, deleting S7
Issue-17
<trackbot> Issue-17 -- S19 and S20 need information to distinguish from ontology recognition -- pending review
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/17
pfps: this is about UI, since its in the charter my objection is not relevant
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-17, as is (would still be nice to have an example)
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-17, as is (would still be nice to have an example)
Arnaud: could we close more issues like this, there are still considerable amount of issues which require more data
<pfps> There is an easy solution for these. If the proposers don't fix their story then it should be dropped.
ArthurRyman: lets discuss the issues on the call, this way people will have to show up and explain
Arnaud: this is a time issue, it takes a lot
ArthurRyman: keep it only on 5 minutes max
<Arnaud> ack ??P11
<pfps> Actually I think that the document is ready for FPWD as is. FPWDs don't have to be polished or even agreed-on by everyone.
ArthurRyman: its a great idea to get something in shape with a good lead time
<pfps> Even if there are open issues the document can be published. It would be nice to note that there are open issues against a story, but that's not even necessary.
ArthurRyman: before the F2F
... we need a bit of time, so put it on the agenda
Arnaud: peter suggested its good enough for a FPWD
... for people new to W3C process, FPWD are not visible on the TR list
... from a time pov we are behind, we should have published the FPWD in December 2014
... a FPWD does not imply a commitment
SimonSteyskal: we at least want to clean up stories a bit
... we havent agreed on requirements yet
<pfps> Having a proposed FPWD ready next week would be the right timing to make a decision at the F2F and publish immediately afterwards.
SimonSteyskal: should we include them, and note we didn't make any decisions
Labra: I wanted to ask if my user story could be added
... pfps asked about constraints, thats why I added my story
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: add S38 to the the User Stories
<ArthurRyman> +1 to add it
<ericP> +1
<pfps> it's quite generic, so not reason to not have it
<pfps> +1
+1
<SimonSteyskal> +1
<TallTed> +1
<Dimitris> +1
<SteveS> +1
RESOLUTION: Add S38 to the the User Stories - status approved
Arnaud: I'm proposing a new set of requirements to be approved
... I've updated the wiki with those who got approved last week
<Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Approve requirements 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.10, 2.5.11, 2.6, 2.6.11, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.7.4, 2.9
<ericP> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ShapeRequirements#Declarations_of_Member_Properties
pfps: all the of the 2.5 ones are still hung up on the declaration issue
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Declarations_of_Member_Properties_at_Classes
<cygri> ericP: pfps, is your concern that we’re making ontological assertions rather than shape assertions?
<cygri> pfps: yes.
ArthurRyman: I want to propose a wording change, if we replace declaration with 'description of expected'
pfps: there are a lot of wording changes to be made in the document then.
kcoyle: If I could understand this I would voulendteer to get the requirements in our document
... I have no idea what you talking about
pfps: if I was making a wording change, I would say 'constraints on properties' or shapes
Arnaud: we need a new wording which does not imply that we are talking about modeling
ArthurRyman: if we can get a substitute declaration then we should put it on top of the document
<ericP> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ShapeRequirements#Assertions_of_Member_Properties
ArthurRyman: that declaration is not meant as a modeling language
Arnaud: doest assertions works for you ?
<SimonSteyskal> just drop "assertions of"
<SimonSteyskal> +1 to arnauds proposal
Arnaud: my proposal remove both assertion / declaration of
<ArthurRyman> +1
<kcoyle> +q
<Labra> I would propose description instead of declaration/assertion
kcoyle: if we drop declarations, is association with class still okay ?
<pfps> Fine by me
<SimonSteyskal> +1
Arnaud: I see light at end of the tunnel, but we need to change the document like ericP did in his version.
<SimonSteyskal> all? or just 2.5 family
Arnaud: postpone the approval of the requirements to next week
ericP: I made some substantial changes in the document, I might have misinterpreted something
Arnaud: separate the 2 issues, make the change we just talked about, and discuss the rest
<pfps> associating classes with constraints is not a problem for me.
Arnaud: ericP update your document and send it to the mailing list so people can have a look at it
<Dimitris> +q
pfps: I take a look at the current document to get the declaration out of it
<pfps> my plan is to edit the current document
<Dimitris> asked EricP to add his changes in the original document as comments
<pfps> I'm not volunteering to work on Eric's changed document
<pfps> I respectfully decline
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Literal_Value_Comparison
https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates.html
<pfps> "LDOM (Name and Acronym TBD) is an RDF-based modeling language"?
<pfps> "LDOM (Name and Acronym TBD) fills the role of schema language for linked data"?
<pfps> "LDOM declarations"?
<pfps> "LDOM models"
<pfps> "LDOM definitions"?
pfps: my problem is that it stil looks like a modelling language
... not a shape defenition language
cygri: I'm not sure the rework addresses the core issues
... If I have a language which puts contraints I can do modeling with it
... how does this connect to existing modelling languages
ArthurRyman: there is a dif between a modeling and a contraint language
... RDF provides the data model, RDFS/OWL put more information about inference on it, we still need a language to put constraints on the RDF data
cygri: we could use a constraint language for modeling, although awkward, it would work
<hknublau> +1
ArthurRyman: we can use shapes there were inferencing is not used
<cygri> +1 to the point that it doesn’t matter if we call it a modelling language or not
ArthurRyman: we are creating the analog of xmlschema for rdf
hsolbrig: any modeling has a metamodel of some sort, and a set of rules that apply to the meta model
Arnaud: it is clear that this issue is fundamental to our work
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose that i go through ripping out "model"
<pfps> I expect that the edits will end up back at ... SPIN.