See also: IRC log
no zakiim on the phone?
<kcoyle> doesn't recognize passcode
<Arnaud> oh oh
<kcoyle> i mean, on phone
<hsolbrig> zakim doesn't like me
<kcoyle> no, harold, it doesn't like anyone today
zakim appears to be broken or overloaded
<hsolbrig> 742737 is not valid
<Arnaud> zakim seems to be in limbo
<Arnaud> it hung up on me
<Arnaud> yikes
<hsolbrig> I'm sorry, Hal, I can't do that...
the telco part of zakim doesn't seem to be working
<Arnaud> I'm pinging sysreq
is eric trying to see what has gone wrong?
<ericP> yeah, but it's not going well
<Arnaud> eric, what's the emergency plan?
<ericP> panic
<Arnaud> I ping #sysreq but no response yet
<hsolbrig> I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that
<aryman> also getting "This passcode is not valid"
put your head under your desk
<ericP> yeah, i saw
<Arnaud> let's try to get a different passcode
<ericP> how many are we usually?
<hsolbrig> Our name is legion
<Arnaud> ah
OK that worked.
<kcoyle> same passcode?
I guess that Zakim lost its marbles (and memory)
<SimonSteyskal> 26632 karen
what about minutes??
<Arnaud> that should be ok
<Arnaud> rrsagent is logging so we're good
I can scribe
<scribe> scribenick: pfps
arnaud: Minutes
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 2 and 9 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/02-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-minutes.html
Minutes look fine to me
<aryman> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 2 and 9 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/02-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-minutes.html
arnaud: next meeting next week
... F2F3 to be virtual due to low expected physical attendance?
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Change F2F3 to Virtual F2F - roughly 6h/day over 3 days between 9am and 5pm ET
PROPOSED: Change F2F3 to Virtual F2F - roughly 6h/day over 3 days between 9am and 5pm ET
0
I may not be able to scribe
RESOLUTION: Change F2F3 to Virtual F2F - roughly 6h/day over 3 days between 9am and 5pm ET
Arnaud: pending actions - none
... open actions - two
... ACTION-17 has been done
... ACTION-18 also done, will be discussed later today
... Raised issues will be discussed later
<Labra> +q
labra: what happened to the language tags requirement?
arnaud: where is this?
<hknublau> I am trying to join the call but it says “you are the first participant”. Had two attempt already.
arnaud: defer to requirements section
Arnaud: FPWD User Stories document out
... Given that drafts are accessible the idea of publish-often is not as important
... But having a heartbeat is still somewhat important
... What's next for User Stories? What about S40?
Simon: Plan to restructure to have use cases along with stories
kcoyle: also adding in new stuff
Simon: changes are in progress
Arnaud: User Story S40
... Peter is still requesting further clarification
<hknublau> zakim [IPcaller] is me
pfps: doing working group work the morning of a teleconference is a *bad* idea
cygri: This is not written as a story, but a requirement, as is presupposes a solution
... The basic idea is that the data may be chopped up into different graphs.
... stating it this way may lead to a better resolution
aryman: there is a story there
<kcoyle> +q
arnaud: what is the way forward? maybe a story with no requirements?
kcoyle: I added an actual story from the library world
arnaud: peter what is your point?
ted: peter has not had a chance to look at the recent changes
<cygri> There is a story there, but there’s also multiple requirements and an almost specified solution. I don’t think the story is actually contentious; the other things possibly are.
+1 to cygri
Arnaud: Ted added an item about Eric's survey
ericP: The survey was to try to determine what should be in ShEx
Arnaud: Some people have reservations about the survey
... But beyond that some working group members feel that a survey would be useful
ericp: Yes - I felt that getting something out now was useful
ted: I suggest that there be a retitling
ericp: the questionnaire says that it is not from the WG
<ericP> "Your responses will be given as input to the RDF Data Shapes WG as requirements for SHACL (though this questionnaire is not a product of Working Group)."
<ericP> + a link to SHACL UC&R
pfps: I was not in a very happy place when the questionnaire came out
arnaud: eric, could you better explain what is going on in the questionnaire
... is there a link to ShEx
ericp: there is a link to the SHACL User Stories FPWD
arnaud: but no link to ShEx?
ericp: no, I could add that
arnaud: there was a comment from outside the WG that indicated confusion
ericp: I explicitly waited until the FPWD came out
arnaud: please update
eric: OK
arnaud: does that address the current concerns
... eric was worried that it would take a long time to come up with a WG-approved questionairre
... should the WG come up with a survey
ted: there is clearly value to collecting this information
... we have been working on user stories, and been struggling on terminology that comes out of them
... a survey about SHACL requirements would be useful
arnaud: the WG could publish any document explicitly asking for feedback
ted: the existence of the current survey may dilute the effect of later questions
that's my biggest annoyance with the current situation
aryman: a survey should be driven by real-world examples, not by language features
arnaud: there is not much that the WG could do
pfps: there are lots of things that the WG could do, but perhaps not many of them are reasonable to do
arnaud: agreed
<Arnaud> ak cygri
<TallTed> the "rebranding" of the questionnaire will have substantial impact on my feeling as to actions going forward.
cygri: part of the issue comes from eric's multiple hats, making clear what is going on is indicated
arnaud: yes, people make connections that may not intended
... let's move forward
<cygri> I think ericP has a Mayo hat, a W3C staff hat, and a Shapes WG team contact hat?
me a Mayo hat - is that with tuna?
arnaud: issue 2.6.11
<Arnaud> 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes
ericp: I made some changes to clarify
aryman: I'm fine
pfps: requirements without definitions are OK as long as they get a definition at some time or their supporters withdraw
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes
<SimonSteyskal> +1
0
<kcoyle> +1
<aryman> +1
<Labra> +1
ted: I'm confused about the current wording
<TallTed> -1
ted: the intent appears to be to identify "unused" shapes and do something
... the words on the wiki don't seem to match what I thought was going on
ericp: I'll try to update
<hknublau> +q
arnaud: thanks, let's try an email exchange to clarify
eric: how about enumerating the options that servers have (reject, ...)?
ted: sounds reasonable
ericp: OK, I'll go that way
<aryman> +q
holger: eric - closed shapes fail if an unmentioned predicate is there?
ericp: yes
aryman: holger was talking about unmentioned values, not unmentioned predicates
<hknublau> Suggesting to change second sentence to “Closed shapes flag triples that have predicates that are not explicitly constrained (using sh:property/sh:inverseProperty) in the shape.”
arnaud: let's discuss this by email - maybe the section in the survey could be referenced
ted: that's what should be in the wiki
ericp: but then people complain about it being too specific
<Labra> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/35
arnaud: we need to handle jose's requirement issue
... this is a proposal to split a requirement, can we do this now?
pfps: this is not a simple change
... how about an email warning that this is coming
arnaud: I'll send out an email
labra: that's fine
arnaud: there is no current SHACL spec, so please don't imply that there is
... there is an issue to create a FPWD
... this was a bit of a surprise
aryman: what is the process then?
... holger suggested that this be done and nothing happened
arnaud: this is a proposal, and not an issue
... what to do with the issue
... there are objections to actually doing the proposal
aryman: there are several parallel efforts
... what is the process to converge?
arnaud: this discussion has come up before
... there are different opinions on how to proceed
aryman: but there needs to be some deadline
arnaud: there are lots of issues that need to be addressed
aryman: but some are related to a particular solution
pfps: I'm the anti-arthur - pushing to FPWD on this document embodies certain decisions that have not yet been made
<cygri> empty document?
arnaud: a way forward is to only include what has been decided
pfps: at some time fundamental decisions have to be made
kcoyle: I don't think that arthur is proposing publishing what we have, just that the WG should start with something cohesive
aryman: part of the charter is to define a high level language and that part of the document is stable so let's use that as a starting point and get the high-level language nailed down
<hknublau> +q
pfps: as far as I can tell everything is still subject to fundamental disagreement
<cygri> ISSUE-29 is on the agenda. We could try to resolve it today.
aryman: yes, so let's do something else and at least have something to raise issues against
arnaud: the charter indicates that the WG should have a second working draft on the spec already
... if there isn't a FPWD for the spec by June then that's a problem
... we are close to the point where decisions have to be made
holger: are there fundamental disagreements? we have agreed on formal grounding on SPARQL and extensions via SPARQL
arnaud: ISSUE-29 seems relevant
... what about ISSUE-43
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-43 Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1
aryman: let's open it
<SimonSteyskal> +1
<aryman> +1
<TallTed> +1 open
-1
<Labra> +1
<cygri> If the chair says it shouldn’t be an issue, then it probably shouldn’t be an issue.
<hknublau> +1
<kcoyle> +1
I agree with cygri
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-43 Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 as is
it is also possible to just drop issues
<hknublau> -1
+1
<aryman> -1
cygri: the question is how are we supposed to use issues, I believe that issues are to be used to track problems
... ISSUE-43 is not a problem with a document but a problem with process
ted: peter is objecting to making implicit decisions, what are these?
... there should be a date for counter proposals and if none come forward we move forward with this document
arnaud: let's set a deadline
... the end of the month (April)
ted: proposals don't have to be perfect
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: All proposals to be considered should be in decent shape by the end of the month (30 April) or will be dropped
<SimonSteyskal> +1
<aryman> +1
<hknublau> +1
+1
<Labra> 0
<TallTed> +1
<cygri> +1
<kcoyle> +1
RESOLUTION: All proposals to be considered should be in decent shape by the end of the month (30 April) or will be dropped
arnaud: there has been some time already for proposals to come forward
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-43 Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1, it's not a real issue and should be addressed at the F2F
pfps: the VF2VF would be a good opportunity to make decisions
+1
<aryman> +1
<kcoyle> +1
<Labra> +1
<cygri> +1
<hknublau> 0
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-43 Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1, it's not a real issue and should be addressed at the F2F
<SimonSteyskal> 0
<TallTed> +1
<Arnaud> ISSUE-44: How to express dependencies between graphs
<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-44 How to express dependencies between graphs.
arnaud: ISSUE-44
<Arnaud> ISSUE-44?
<trackbot> ISSUE-44 -- How to express dependencies between graphs -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/44
This is a real issue, so I see no reason not to open
holger: this is about saying in SHACL that a document needs another one
<TallTed> +1 open it
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-44: How to express dependencies between graphs
+1
<cygri> +1
<hknublau> +1
<SimonSteyskal> +1
<Labra> +1
<aryman> +1
<kcoyle> +1
RESOLUTION: Open ISSUE-44: How to express dependencies between graphs
arnaud: ISSUE-29
... this is a fundamental issue
... there is a resolution to use SPARQL
<Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/29
pfps: ISSUE-29 includes two SPARQL options to just saying SPARQL doesn't dispose of the entire issue
arnaud: given previous decisions the two SPARQL options appear indicated
<hknublau> +q
aryman: it may be necessary to augment SPARQL
holger: I don't see why these two approaches are different - just an implementation detail
<cygri> I liked pfps’ proposal from email: “Partly resolve ISSUE-29 stating that the formalism for the
<cygri> definition of the high-level language of SHACL will be SPARQL, perhaps with
<cygri> some combination of results that will take place outside of SPARQL”
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
<Arnaud> good, it worked