18:59:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:59:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-shapes-irc
18:59:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:59:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:59:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:59:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
18:59:14 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:59:14 <trackbot> Date: 05 March 2015
19:00:38 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
19:01:02 <Arnaud> Zakim, this is SHAPES
19:01:02 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud; that matches DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM
19:01:11 <cygri> cygri has joined #shapes
19:01:11 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
19:01:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps, ericP, Arnaud, +1.905.764.aaaa
19:01:26 <ArthurRyman> ArthurRyman has joined #shapes
19:01:33 <cygri> zakim, code?
19:01:33 <Zakim> the conference code is 742737 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), cygri
19:01:36 <Arnaud> zakim, aaaa is ArthurRyman
19:01:36 <Zakim> +ArthurRyman; got it
19:02:05 <Zakim> +??P5
19:02:08 <cygri> zakim, ??P5 is me
19:02:08 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
19:02:13 <cygri> zakim, mute me
19:02:13 <Zakim> cygri should now be muted
19:02:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
19:02:47 <Zakim> + +30694579aabb
19:02:48 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
19:02:51 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
19:02:57 <Dimitris> zakim, +30694579aabb is me
19:02:57 <Zakim> +Dimitris; got it
19:03:02 <hknublau> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
19:03:02 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
19:03:05 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
19:03:25 <Labra> zakim, who is on the phone
19:03:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', Labra
19:03:48 <Zakim> + +1.510.435.aacc
19:04:04 <kcoyle> zakim, aacc is me
19:04:04 <Zakim> +kcoyle; got it
19:04:34 <cygri> scribe: cygri
<cygri> chair: Arnaud
<cygri> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.03.05
<cygri> topic: Admin
19:05:15 <pfps> Anything about next F2F?
19:05:24 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
19:05:30 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 26 February Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-shapes-minutes.html
19:05:32 <cygri> Arnaud: ArthurRyman has retired from IBM and is now an Invited Expert.
19:05:40 <pfps> Minutes of 26 Feb look OK
19:05:51 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 26 February Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-shapes-minutes.html
19:05:57 <cygri> subtopic: Minutes of F2F
19:06:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
19:06:09 <pfps> Minutes of F2F look good to me
19:06:10 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the F2F2:   http://www.w3.org/2015/02/17-shapes-minutes.html   http://www.w3.org/2015/02/18-shapes-minutes.html   http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-shapes-minutes.html
19:06:18 <hsolbrig> Zakim, IPcaller is hsolbrig
19:06:18 <Zakim> +hsolbrig; got it
19:06:26 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the F2F2:   http://www.w3.org/2015/02/17-shapes-minutes.html   http://www.w3.org/2015/02/18-shapes-minutes.html   http://www.w3.org/2015/02/19-shapes-minutes.html
19:06:38 <cygri> subtopic: Next meeting
19:06:47 <cygri> Arnaud: Next call will be March 12th
19:06:57 <cygri> subtopic: Next F2F
19:07:23 <cygri> Arnaud: We left the previous F2F with open question regarding dates and location
19:07:38 <pfps> I think that IBM CAS north of Toronto would be an excellent location as well
19:07:51 <cygri> ... pfps offered options to host, including on a small island that sounded nice but maybe not ideal
19:08:04 <cygri> ... and cygri offered to host in Raleigh
19:08:19 <cygri> ericP: I was hoping for a meeting in Europe, no more budget for international travel
19:08:35 <cygri> Arnaud: I’d prefer to keep us in NA this time and Europe next time
19:08:41 <cygri> ... and meet in May
19:08:53 <cygri> ... suggest doing a Doodle poll
19:09:05 <pfps> poll sounds like the best method (but, of course, all methods are bad)
19:09:12 <cygri> ericP: Sounds good to me
19:09:26 <cygri> ACTION: Arnaud to set up Doodle poll for date/location of next F2F
19:09:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Set up doodle poll for date/location of next f2f [on Arnaud Le Hors - due 2015-03-12].
19:09:47 <cygri> topic: Tracking of actions & issues
19:09:55 <pfps> ACTION-15 looks done to me
19:09:58 <cygri> Arnaud: ACTION-15 is done, propose to close
19:10:05 <cygri> ACTION-15?
19:10:05 <trackbot> ACTION-15 -- Richard Cyganiak to Propose a rephrasing of req 2.11.7 -- due 2015-03-05 -- CLOSED
19:10:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/15
19:10:48 <cygri> hsolbrig: No progress on ACTION-11 and ACTION-12
19:10:53 <pfps> mediawiki isn't an official action, i think
19:11:00 <Labra> +q
19:11:02 <pfps> s/mediawiki/SWM/
19:11:08 <cygri> ... will get to that in next couple of days
19:11:43 <cygri> Labra: I proposed a different wording for 2.11.7
19:11:54 <pfps> the action was to propose something, and that was done.  The action was not to fix the world.
19:11:58 <Arnaud> ack labra
19:12:09 <Arnaud> ISSUE-21?
19:12:09 <trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- What is shape expressions? -- raised
19:12:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/21
19:12:16 <cygri> Arnaud: We closed just cygri’s action to propose a wording. This doesn’t mean the wording or requirement is accepted.
19:12:42 <cygri> Arnaud: pfps pointed out that there are multiple definitions of ShEx
19:12:49 <pfps> q+
19:12:59 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:13:21 <cygri> pfps: People say “ShEx” and it’s not clear what is meant
19:13:33 <cygri> ... Very different things with the same name
19:13:58 <cygri> ericP: We have implementations that seem to give the same results on the same input. How different are they really?
19:14:14 <cygri> pfps: They are very different. Different semantics, different intuitions, etc
19:14:50 <cygri> ericP: Implementations based on algebraic semantic and on the W3C submission were used and gave the same results
19:15:02 <Labra> +q
19:15:08 <cygri> pfps: The member submission is completely open, the algebraic one completely closed.
19:15:13 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:16:10 <cygri> Labra: Which is the algebraic one? My axiomatic proposal is open. Some of my earlier papers had closed semantics, but now I am trying to stick to open semantics.
19:16:26 <cygri> ... General feeling is that we are talking about the same thing
19:16:49 <cygri> ... There may be corner cases that need to be worked out but the goal is to have the same semantics
19:17:00 <cygri> ... The goal is to have open semantics
19:17:14 <cygri> ... In my semantics, there is a construct to close a shape, but that is just an option
19:17:29 <cygri> ... Experimental option. Goal is to have same semantics as ericP.
19:17:54 <cygri> pfps: Telling example: I have a b-filler that is c and a b-filler that is e
19:18:18 <cygri> ... In member submission, this is never satisfiable, in the other one it is
19:18:27 <cygri> [scribe is probably getting this wrong]
19:18:59 <cygri> ericP: Uniqueness criteria were changed. In submission we had single occurence requirement. This didn’t work, so we extended it.
19:19:12 <cygri> ... There was lots of discussion about this.
19:19:29 <cygri> ... But I have no idea what the answer to these cases would be in SHACL.
19:19:41 <cygri> Arnaud: The status quo is we have different versions of ShEx.
19:19:59 <cygri> ... I am not sure that the details have any bearing on the discussion at this time
19:20:12 <cygri> ... When you say “ShEx”, you have to be careful not to assume to much
19:20:19 <cygri> s/assume to/assume too/
19:20:31 <cygri> ... Most of the differences don’t matter now
19:20:46 <Labra> +q
19:20:51 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:20:53 <cygri> pfps: We are already talking about closure, about And, about Or, and nobody knows what they mean
19:21:06 <cygri> ericP: Well we will have to figure them out one by one
19:21:45 <cygri> pfps: Nobody knows what we are really talking about. Everybody thinks, “I like this”, and then later figure out that it’s something completely different
19:22:08 <cygri> Arnaud: Until we write down all details in the spec, there is room for misunderstanding
19:22:25 <cygri> pfps: It’s ever so much worse because there are three versions of ShEx
19:22:41 <cygri> ... If anyone talks about ShEx, link to a spec
19:22:48 <cygri> Arnaud: That seems fair enough
19:23:08 <cygri> ericP: Does your semantics capture [???]
19:23:24 <cygri> s/Does/Jose, does/
19:23:36 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-21, asking for people to clarify which version of ShEx they refer to when they use that term
19:23:51 <pfps> That's fine by me.
19:24:04 <cygri> Labra: I’m trying to. Work on ShEx goes all the way back to the workshop, and these are the things we are now trying to clarify
19:24:25 <michel> michel has joined #shapes
19:24:33 <cygri> ... We also have a glossary that is helpful to clarify what we mean by Open/Close, Or, etc
19:24:51 <cygri> Arnaud: For now, how about we always reference a version?
19:25:03 <Zakim> +michel
19:25:04 <cygri> ... Until there is convergence?
19:25:07 <pfps> +1
19:25:09 <cygri> +1
19:25:10 <kcoyle> +1
19:25:10 <Dimitris> +1
19:25:10 <hsolbrig> +1
19:25:11 <Labra> +1
19:25:13 <ericP> +1
19:25:14 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:25:19 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-21, asking for people to clarify which version of ShEx they refer to when they use that term
19:25:25 <pfps> One problem with the axiomatic semantics is that it appears to me that it has a number of problems.
19:25:38 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-14
19:25:40 <cygri> ISSUE-14?
19:25:40 <trackbot> ISSUE-14 -- S14 might be about change not constraints -- pending review
19:25:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/14
19:25:58 <cygri> pfps: I looked at it and it looks fine to me.
19:26:13 <cygri> ... I’m happy with the current status.
19:26:27 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-14
19:26:49 <cygri> topic: User Stories/Use Cases
19:27:07 <cygri> kcoyle: Simon is in the midst of adding the user stories
19:27:18 <cygri> ... There are now some new stories and some have changed
19:27:26 <cygri> ... We need to know which are approved
19:27:44 <cygri> Arnaud: I think two more issues related to stories need to be resolved
19:27:56 <cygri> ISSUE-15?
19:27:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- S17 is about access not constraints -- open
19:27:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/15
19:29:28 <cygri> Arnaud: I think there was no response from Dean on S17
19:29:37 <cygri> ... I will ping him
19:29:43 <cygri> ISSUE-16?
19:29:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- S18 does not appear to be about constraints -- open
19:29:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/16
19:30:06 <cygri> pfps: David said it’s subsumed by previous story
19:30:27 <cygri> ... He said it may not be very constraint-like, but it seems like a useful facility
19:30:40 <cygri> ... Not a strong argument for enclosing it as a user story
19:30:46 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: ISSUE-16, dropping S18
19:30:49 <pfps> +1
19:31:06 <cygri> ±0
19:31:17 <kcoyle> +1
19:31:18 <michel> +1
19:31:29 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:31:34 <Labra> +1
19:31:42 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: ISSUE-16, dropping S18
19:31:57 <cygri> [The resolution is to *close* ISSUE-16]
19:31:59 <pfps> As I've stated for some time now, I think that the document meets the (low) bar for FPWD, even without closing open issues or adding new stories.
19:32:16 <cygri> Arnaud: Let’s move to Requirements
19:32:47 <cygri> ... I have a list of those that are under consideration. It needs updating.
19:33:18 <cygri> topic: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of structural from complex constraints
19:33:27 <cygri> zakim, unmute me
19:33:27 <Zakim> cygri should no longer be muted
19:33:29 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Separation_of_structural_from_complex_constraints
19:33:31 <pfps> The revised version addresses my objection
19:33:40 <Labra> +q
19:34:00 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:34:04 <cygri> cygri: This is the one I reworded and Jose made counterproposal
19:34:06 <cygri> zakim, mute me
19:34:06 <Zakim> cygri should now be muted
19:34:23 <cygri> Jose: I proposed a simple rewording
19:34:37 <cygri> Instead of “SHACL profile”, I would like “SHACL profile or core language”
19:34:52 <pfps> This would also be fine by me
19:35:05 <cygri> q+
19:35:08 <cygri> zakim, unmute me
19:35:08 <Zakim> cygri should no longer be muted
19:35:09 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:35:09 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:36:13 <pfps> Unfortunately these fine points of wording seem to be causing problems - we have seen emails stating that the understanding of requirements is not shared amongst all WG members
19:37:25 <pfps> I think that Jose doesn't want his preferred solution to be *excluded* by the reading of this proposal
19:38:07 <cygri> cygri: I think the wording “SHACL Profile” makes most sense and should address Jose’s concerns
19:38:44 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:38:49 <cygri> Arnaud: We should have a separate discussion about the point of contention, but move on withe the requirement
19:39:28 <cygri> ArthurRyman: There was a decision that there will be a high-level language that dosn’t require SPARQL, and a way to extend it
19:39:43 <cygri> ... Also, Javascript cited as a way of extending it
19:40:13 <pfps> This is getting into mechanisms for supporting the requirement, not the requirement itself.
19:40:19 <cygri> ... Can SPARQL and Javascript be optional, saying that a SHACL processor doens’t need to support them?
19:40:33 <cygri> ... Ignore certain constraints if implementation can’t validate them?
19:40:49 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: change 2.11.7 per Richard's proposal amended by Jose
19:41:14 <pfps> +1
19:41:16 <cygri> Arnaud: Let’s separate the discussion and talk about SPARQL later.
19:41:18 <Labra> +1
19:41:20 <ericP> +1
19:41:21 <michel> +1
19:41:25 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:41:25 <cygri> +0.5
19:41:31 <Dimitris> +1
19:41:36 <hsolbrig> +1
19:41:41 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: change 2.11.7 per Richard's proposal amended by Jose
19:42:13 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve 2.11.7 Separation of structural from complex constraints
19:42:15 <ericP> +1
19:42:17 <cygri> Peter’s objection is addressed, so we can approve this
19:42:17 <Labra> +1
19:42:19 <cygri> +1
19:42:21 <pfps> I'm not going to vote *for* it, but  I'm not voting against it.
19:42:23 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:42:24 <kcoyle> +1
19:42:25 <pfps> 0
19:42:33 <hsolbrig> +1
19:42:45 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve 2.11.7 Separation of structural from complex constraints
19:42:59 <cygri> topic: Discuss role of SPARQL
19:43:28 <cygri> Arnaud: We need to come to terms on this.
19:43:58 <cygri> ... One camp wants to start with the well-defined semantics of SPARQL, leverage this, build on top of this, and maybe define a simpler profile with higher-level building blocks
19:44:23 <cygri> ... You can claim conformance to the profile and don’t need to  implement it in SPARQL
19:44:39 <Arnaud> An RDF vocabulary, such as Resource Shapes 2.0, for expressing these shapes in RDF triples, so they can be stored, queried, analyzed, and manipulated with normal RDF tools, with some extensibility mechanism for complex use cases.
19:44:47 <cygri> ... And then there’s the other camp that wants to start with a high-level language
19:44:56 <pfps> q+
19:45:08 <cygri> ... The latter case seems to be more in line with what the charter says
19:45:21 <cygri> ... With SPARQL being an obvious candidate for the extensibility mechanism
19:45:53 <cygri> ... It may be that there’s not much of a difference between both options, where it’s just a question of which part one considers the core
19:46:15 <cygri> ... We should address this for real
19:46:22 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:46:23 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:46:36 <cygri> pfps: Is your comment about the charter an official chair ruling?
19:46:58 <cygri> ... And if so, put it in writing so I can object to it?
19:47:41 <cygri> ... Those of us who think the SPARQL-based solution is superior would need to figure out if we need to push
19:48:06 <cygri> Arnaud: To clarify, the charter does not exclude a SPARQL-based solution
19:48:13 <Labra> +q
19:48:40 <cygri> ... I did not rule out the SPARQL-based proposal.
19:49:02 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:49:04 <cygri> ... As you know, WGs have some freedom in how they address the charter
19:49:51 <cygri> ArthurRyman: Does the second camp say that we need to start from scratch?
19:49:52 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:50:02 <cygri> ... Totally new language and then figure out how it relates to SPARQL?
19:50:25 <pfps> It seems to me that the non-SPARQL camp wants the high-level language's semantics to be defined by something other than SPARQL.
19:50:42 <cygri> Labra: I don’t think the approaches are incompatible. Let’s not say someone is in the SPARQL camp or not
19:50:56 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:51:08 <cygri> ... My point is that we should concentrate on the high-level language, and have implementations in different technologies
19:51:30 <Labra> +q
19:51:31 <cygri> ArthurRyman: Rather than SPARQL just being an implementation language, I’d see it as defining the semantics of the high-level language
19:51:34 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:51:42 <cygri> +1 to ArthurRyman
19:51:58 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:52:01 <pfps> +1 to Arthur
19:52:05 <cygri> Labra: There could be a separate chapter that has mappings to SPARQL
19:52:12 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:52:34 <cygri> ... To define a high-level language, you need an abstract syntax
19:52:46 <ericP> q+
19:52:53 <pfps> There was something that Jose said that did not come through
19:52:57 <cygri> ... I have a problem with a high-level language that’s only a single template construct
19:52:58 <cygri> q+
19:53:09 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:53:40 <Labra> +q
19:53:43 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:53:48 <cygri> ArthurRyman: I agree with Holger that you don’t need an abstract syntax. The charter says we deliver an RDF vocabulary. That is the abstract syntax for me.
19:54:16 <pfps> The problem with just defining an RDF vocabulary is that there has to be a lot of stuff to say what is possible, and this is, in effect, an abstract syntax
19:54:33 <cygri> ericP: At F2F we said there would be a language addressable through the RDF vocabulary and multiple semantics documents that say what it means, and we’d have a beauty contest
19:54:36 <Labra> +1 to pfps comment above
19:54:40 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:54:49 <ArthurRyman> agreed that an RDF vocabulary is not sufficient
19:55:03 <pfps> That said, the spec document doesn't need to talk about the abstract syntax per so
19:55:07 <pfps> s/so/se/
19:55:28 <ericP> cygri: jose said that the two options are to either have a high-level language or one that's built of blogs of SPARQL
19:55:40 <pfps> s/blogs/blobs/
19:55:57 <ericP> ... the actual proposal is that there be a high-level language defined using SPARQL templates
19:56:25 <Labra> I claim that just looking to the current draft of the spec
19:56:35 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:57:09 <cygri> Labra: What I am saying is based on Holger’s spec
19:57:13 <pfps> An RDF vocabulary is a horrible way to define a high-level syntax, but it's not an impossibility to define a high-level language on top of an RDF vocabulary
19:57:17 <ArthurRyman> 1) we use RDF as the syntax, 2) augment that with a clear spec, 3) define the semantics in SPARQL (possibly as templates - avoiding circularity)
19:57:39 <cygri> ... The spec has the priorities wrong. It starts with the template mechanism.
19:58:00 <cygri> ... Regarding abstract syntax. The term may not be popular, but an RDF vocabualry is not enough.
19:58:08 <cygri> ... Concurring with Peter.
19:58:32 <Arnaud> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#constraints-global-native
19:58:50 <cygri> Arnaud: Holger said there’s already a clear separation between SPARQL and rest
19:59:05 <cygri> ... One of the first examples uses a SPARQL ASK query
19:59:17 <cygri> ... So is there a way to do the same thing without SPARQL?
19:59:32 <cygri> ... If there is, it should be shown. If not, there is no clear separation.
19:59:46 <cygri> ... This is just from a casual reading.
20:00:20 <Zakim> -michel
20:00:37 <pfps> That is one of my issues with the spec document as it stands - there is no proposed alternative to SPARQL - if SPARQL is going to be the execution environment then don't gild this lily by saying that there are other possible execution languages
20:00:45 <cygri> hknublau: No other proposed language supports global native constraints
20:01:36 <cygri> ... The language is flexible with regard to execution languages
20:01:37 <pfps> I think that it is a bad idea to permit other execution models
20:01:57 <cygri> Arnaud: To be fair, there’s a disclaimer that says SPARQL is used here but others possible
20:02:26 <cygri> ... the spec looks like it endorses only SPARQL
20:02:32 <cygri> q+
20:02:39 <Arnaud> ack cygri
20:03:11 <pfps> It's not the structure of the document that needs work, it's the philosophy of the document
20:03:13 <Labra> I proposed a lot of changes to the spec that were rejected by Holger
20:03:31 <Labra> +1 to pfps comment
20:03:55 <hsolbrig> My question is whether a compliant SHACL implementation must include a SPARQL interpreter and, if so, how complete?
20:04:35 <cygri> cygri: Talking about the spec is too early. Design needs to be clarified. This is easier by talking about something concise like the pfps proposal.
20:05:17 <cygri> Arnaud: ericP worked on primer
20:05:29 <pfps> What are we supposed to be looking at?
20:05:30 <cygri> ... Please look at it and consider if it’s ready for FPWD
20:05:32 <hknublau> we need more meeting time
20:05:35 <Zakim> -ArthurRyman
20:05:36 <Zakim> -pfps
20:05:36 <Zakim> -Arnaud
20:05:38 <Zakim> -Dimitris
20:05:41 <Zakim> -cygri
20:05:43 <Zakim> -hsolbrig
20:05:44 <Zakim> -ericP
20:05:45 <Zakim> -kcoyle
20:05:48 <Arnaud> pfps, the primer: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/
20:05:57 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
20:05:58 <hknublau> another week went by with too little progress IMHO
20:05:58 <pfps> +1 to holger
20:06:19 <Zakim> -hknublau
20:06:21 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended
20:06:21 <Zakim> Attendees were pfps, ericP, Arnaud, +1.905.764.aaaa, ArthurRyman, cygri, Dimitris, hknublau, +1.510.435.aacc, kcoyle, hsolbrig, michel
<Zakim> present: pfps, ericP, Arnaud, ArthurRyman, cygri, Dimitris, hknublau, kcoyle, hsolbrig, michel
20:06:30 <Arnaud> ok with me, we could add 30mn to the call
20:06:39 <hknublau> yes please
20:06:59 <Arnaud> I'll make the proposal to the list
20:07:05 <cygri> I think we need some PROPOSALs on key questions, and focus on the conceptual level of what we’re building, rather than on what to call things and in what order to present things in the spec
20:07:14 <Arnaud> the only downside is that I may get cranky as I get more hungry :)
20:07:27 <Arnaud> or just crankier ;)
20:08:09 <cygri> Cranky chairs are not always a bad thing!
20:08:12 <Arnaud> I think the way things are presented is very telling of what people's assumptions are though
20:08:39 <Arnaud> the discussion on core vs profile is a demonstration of that
20:08:57 <cygri> Arnaud, that is true but you can make these assumptions clear much faster than writing a long spec
20:10:18 <Dimitris> Dimitris has left #shapes
20:10:26 <Arnaud> we probably should have a few more highlevel issues raised to capture the pain points
20:10:37 <Arnaud> people can then make proposals to resovle these
20:10:47 <cygri> Arnaud, is it productive at this stage to send PROPOSALs to the list, such as “PROPOSAL: SHACL must support embedded SPARQL in at least one profile”?
20:11:28 <Arnaud> you can, I think nobody will disagree with that
20:11:58 <Arnaud> the disagreement seems to be about what is considered the base
20:12:05 <cygri> Well, but then the next is, “PROPOSAL: All high-level constructs must have normative definitions in SPARQL, except where that is impossible”
20:12:11 <Arnaud> do you take a top-down approach or bottom up
20:12:58 <cygri> And: “PROPOSAL: SHACL includes a facility for defining new high-level constructs using SPARQL”
20:13:12 <cygri> “(in at least one profile)”
20:13:19 <Arnaud> that's probably more controversial
20:13:42 <Arnaud> but feel free to ask and we'll see
20:13:49 <cygri> Arnaud, right. But I think it would be helpful to establish some firm ground around the controversial questions
20:14:01 <Arnaud> I agree
20:14:51 <Arnaud> the truth is that we've tried to avoid some of these pain points to try and make progress (before people start jumping on each other's throat :)
20:15:38 <Arnaud> but obviously we can't keep avoiding them and need to resolve them at some point
20:16:30 <Arnaud> I think it has been a useful exercise in that it has allowed people to know each other and get to understand each other better
20:16:31 <cygri> Yes. I think we know quite well where the fault lines are, and we perhaps need new input/opinions/voices for those that have so far kept out of these discussions
20:16:48 <Arnaud> which is key to having a productive discussion
20:17:11 <Arnaud> like who?
20:17:27 <Arnaud> oh sorry, I need to go
20:17:38 <Arnaud> you can type and I'll see it later
20:17:47 <cygri> Ok will do
20:20:03 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
20:20:13 <cygri> The SPARQL question has been dominated by the TopQuadrant folks and Peter and Jose. I’m not sure where Harold or Arthur or Karen or even Eric fall on some of these questions. If there are proposals with support from the majority, and strong opposition only from one or two voices, then at least it puts pressure on them to propose a way forward.
20:21:00 <cygri> Anyway, dinnertime for me.
20:21:38 <cygri> cygri has joined #shapes
20:31:17 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
20:50:56 <Arnaud> rrsagent, generates minutes
20:50:56 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'generates minutes', Arnaud.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
20:51:04 <Arnaud> rrsagent, generate minutes
20:51:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-shapes-minutes.html Arnaud
20:51:12 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:51:12 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:51:12 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
20:51:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:51:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:51:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:51:21 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-shapes-actions.rdf :
20:51:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Arnaud to set up Doodle poll for date/location of next F2F [1]
20:51:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-shapes-irc#T19-09-26