17:57:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:57:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/04-shapes-irc
17:57:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:57:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:57:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:57:42 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:57:43 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:57:43 <trackbot> Date: 04 June 2015
17:58:58 <Arnaud> zakim, this is shapes
17:58:58 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud; that matches DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM
17:59:09 <Zakim> + +1.705.327.aaaa
17:59:20 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
17:59:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, ??P0, +1.705.327.aaaa
17:59:30 <simonstey> zakim, ??P0 is me
17:59:30 <Zakim> +simonstey; got it
17:59:35 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
17:59:51 <Zakim> + +1.510.435.aabb
17:59:51 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:59:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, simonstey, +1.705.327.aaaa, +1.510.435.aabb
18:00:11 <pfps> zakim, aaaa is me
18:00:11 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
18:00:32 <kcoyle> zakim, i am aabb
18:00:32 <Zakim> +kcoyle; got it
18:01:35 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
18:01:38 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.06.04
18:01:38 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:01:45 <michel> michel has joined #shapes
18:01:47 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:02:25 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:02:35 <Zakim> +ericP
18:02:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:02:51 <hsolbrig> zakim, Ipcaller is me
18:02:51 <Zakim> +hsolbrig; got it
18:03:10 <Dimitris> *are we using webex?*
18:03:10 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:03:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Arnaud, simonstey, pfps, kcoyle, ericP, hsolbrig
18:03:19 <Arnaud> no, just zakim
18:03:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:03:47 <Labra> zakim, [IPCaller] is labra
18:03:47 <Zakim> +labra; got it
18:04:04 <Zakim> + +30694579aacc
18:04:23 <Dimitris> zakim, +30694579aacc is me
18:04:23 <Zakim> +Dimitris; got it
18:04:52 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
18:05:05 <simonstey> topic: Admin
18:05:14 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 28 May Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/28-shapes-minutes.html
18:05:15 <pfps> minutes look OK
18:05:26 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
18:05:33 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
18:05:33 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
18:05:35 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:05:35 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:05:37 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 28 May Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/28-shapes-minutes.html
18:05:49 <Arnaud> regrets: aryman
18:06:05 <pfps> q+ to ask when tracker is going to get back on track
18:06:08 <simonstey> Arnaud: next meeting june 11th
18:06:10 <simonstey> TOPIC: Tracking of actions & issues
18:06:46 <simonstey> ericP: I set up a webex meeting
18:06:55 <simonstey> Arnaud: when do we have to switch to webex?
18:07:04 <simonstey> ericP: we can start using it whenever we want
18:07:28 <simonstey> ... we got a meeting number, password etc.
18:08:32 <simonstey> Arnaud: I'm in favour of switching to webex but keep zakim as backup
18:09:00 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:09:13 <simonstey> ... there are some limitations/advantages to webex, I think we can switch to webex for the next meeting
18:09:57 <simonstey> ericP: whoever joins first becomes "presenter" in webex
18:10:50 <simonstey> Arnaud: those who use voip may experience better sound quality when using webex and you see who speaks
18:11:26 <simonstey> ... unfortunately people have to directly tell zakim that they have joined the call
18:12:02 <ericP> next meeting:
18:12:02 <ericP> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m941b5e6540d345fcb389bc371ae7d2fc
18:12:02 <ericP> Meeting number: 640 811 616
18:12:02 <ericP> Meeting password: shapes
18:12:02 <ericP> US Toll Number:+1-617-324-0000
18:12:05 <ericP> Mobile Auto Dial:+1-617-324-0000,,,640811616#
18:12:15 <simonstey> ... we'll only use webex for the call and still use IRC
18:12:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:12:34 <hknublau> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:12:34 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
18:13:11 <simonstey> ... webex info will be on the webpage
18:13:27 <pfps> q+
18:13:35 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:13:35 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask when tracker is going to get back on track and to
18:13:36 <simonstey> ... one open action
18:13:49 <simonstey> pfps: when is tracker going be back on track?
18:14:11 <simonstey> Arnaud: no news, but sysguys are already informed
18:15:15 <simonstey> pfps: problem appears to be evident at least still may 21st
18:15:35 <simonstey> hknublau: I've updated the draft (regarding the open issue)
18:15:50 <simonstey> s/still/since
18:16:40 <simonstey> hknublau: I didnt coordinate with arthur who is also a coeditor/responsible of the issue
18:17:05 <simonstey> Arnaud: we have a bunch of raised issues which we get back to later
18:17:09 <simonstey> topic: User Stories
18:17:16 <simonstey> Arnaud: two new stories
18:18:18 <simonstey> ... S45 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S45:_Linked_Data_Update_via_HTTP_GET_and_PUT
18:18:24 <ericP> +1
18:18:33 <simonstey> ... are you ready to approve it? are there any questions?
18:18:48 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve S45: Linked Data Update via HTTP GET and PUT https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S45:_Linked_Data_Update_via_HTTP_GET_and_PUT
18:19:07 <simonstey> +1
18:19:15 <ericP> +1
18:19:17 <pfps> q+
18:19:22 <kcoyle> +1
18:19:22 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:19:30 <Dimitris> -0.5 fine with the idea don;t like sh:hasShape suggestion
18:19:36 <simonstey> pfps: I still dont know what arthur is asking for
18:20:16 <simonstey> ... either he is asking for something that is already available or not.. I'm not sure
18:20:31 <hsolbrig> +1
18:20:34 <simonstey> Arnaud: I don't see that as a problem
18:20:37 <Labra> +1
18:20:42 <michel> +1
18:20:50 <TallTed> +1
18:21:21 <simonstey> pfps: as long as user stories are something that is related to stuff the WG is doing, I'm fine
18:21:46 <pfps> +1 assuming that all that a user story is is something related to what the working group is doing, not something all of whose aspects are in scope
18:22:02 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve S45: Linked Data Update via HTTP GET and PUT https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S45:_Linked_Data_Update_via_HTTP_GET_and_PUT
18:22:16 <simonstey> Arnaud: S46 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S46:_Software_regression_testing_with_SHACL
18:22:49 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve S46: Software regression testing with SHACL https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S46:_Software_regression_testing_with_SHACL
18:23:22 <ericP> +1
18:23:24 <hknublau> +1
18:23:26 <hsolbrig> +1
18:23:26 <kcoyle> +1
18:23:36 <Dimitris> +1
18:23:43 <Labra> +1
18:23:44 <pfps> +1
18:23:46 <simonstey> +1
18:23:46 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
18:23:46 <Zakim> TallTed was not muted, TallTed
18:23:59 <simonstey> TallTed: it seems out of scope
18:24:18 <pfps> +1 under the same assumptions, not that SHACL is supposed to be storing the results of validation and checking them later
18:24:25 <pfps> q+
18:24:31 <simonstey> ... we are talking about defining a shape but what you are doing with the shape is up to you
18:25:22 <simonstey> Dimitris: I want to be able to track how the shape validation developed over time
18:25:25 <TallTed> +1
18:25:28 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:26:06 <simonstey> pfps: sure this has a SHACL component in it but also some stuff that SHACL won't handle
18:26:37 <simonstey> ...: +1 under the assumption that SHACL won't be responsible for storing the validation results into a db, etc.
18:26:52 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve S46: Software regression testing with SHACL https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S46:_Software_regression_testing_with_SHACL
18:26:53 <simonstey> s/...:/...
18:27:17 <simonstey> Arnaud: eric added another story
18:27:31 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S47:_Clinical_data_constraints
18:28:01 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve S47: Clinical data constraints https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S47:_Clinical_data_constraints
18:28:08 <pfps> q+
18:28:22 <simonstey> ericP: is about existing clinical systems that have multi-occuring constraints
18:28:23 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:29:38 <simonstey> pfps: maybe eric should add some story to emphasize the required features
18:29:44 <pfps> +1 especially as property constraints that don't "exhaust" the property are a reasonable thing
18:30:12 <Arnaud> s/story/sentence/
18:31:04 <simonstey> TallTed: the story isn't worded as story, so it needs some reworking
18:33:09 <simonstey> ... if it's mockup data prefixes are useless, if it's live data we need some prefixes to get a better understanding
18:33:12 <simonstey> Arnaud:
18:33:23 <simonstey> s/Arnaud://
18:33:48 <kcoyle> Ted:could you write that as a comment on the story?
18:33:50 <TallTed> +1 modulo turning it into a story here, and putting the technicalities into the Requirements doc
18:34:09 <ericP> +1
18:34:12 <simonstey> Arnaud: editors will restructure/rephrase the story or may ask you (ted) to rephrase it
18:34:13 <hsolbrig> +1
18:34:15 <simonstey> +1
18:34:17 <hknublau> +1
18:34:19 <Labra> +1
18:34:19 <kcoyle> +1
18:34:24 <Dimitris> +1
18:35:07 <simonstey> Arnaud: ted's point is valid and I will note it in the resolution
18:35:17 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve S47: Clinical data constraints (modulo turning it into a story and putting the technicalities into requirements in the UC&R doc)  https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S47:_Clinical_data_constraints
18:36:02 <pfps> S48 seems a bit premature
18:36:07 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S48:_Capturing_precise_business_practices
18:36:39 <simonstey> ericP: S48 captures the point that we sometimes also want to capture business processes
18:37:55 <simonstey> Arnaud: we will postpone S48 to next week
18:37:59 <simonstey> topic: SHACL spec
18:38:15 <simonstey> Arnaud: I want to talk about the raised issues
18:38:40 <simonstey> ... there are a lot of them and I don't know how much time we should spend on this
18:39:10 <simonstey> ... I also want to talk about the way forward (i.e. how we start working on the spec)
18:39:27 <simonstey> s/start/continue
18:39:42 <pfps> open it
18:39:49 <TallTed> +1
18:39:55 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: open ISSUE-51
18:39:58 <simonstey> ... no objections opening issue-51
18:40:07 <Arnaud> reopen ISSUE-51
18:40:07 <trackbot> Re-opened ISSUE-51.
18:41:27 <simonstey> ... some of the issues jose raised last week are too abstract, but eric helped to rephrase/edit them
18:41:55 <simonstey> ... shall we open them all together or one by one?
18:42:02 <pfps> q+
18:42:08 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:42:46 <simonstey> pfps: I'm not against opening them but I'm afraid there are some incorrent assumptions in them
18:43:17 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:43:17 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:44:00 <simonstey> ... there is no rule by rule algorithm in SHACL
18:45:22 <simonstey> ericP: I call them rules and you call them individual rules
18:45:44 <simonstey> pfps: property constraints want to consume everything for the property
18:46:19 <simonstey> ... there is nothing in the highlevel language that handles multi-occurance as you prefer it but maybe the extension can handle it
18:46:48 <simonstey> Arnaud: let us not get to much into technical details here
18:47:07 <pfps> q+
18:47:35 <simonstey> pfps: you can perfectly write SPARQL that handles that
18:47:43 <Labra> q+
18:47:49 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:47:56 <simonstey> ... (multi-occur.)
18:48:12 <simonstey> s/occurance/occurence
18:48:38 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:49:00 <pfps> how about s/core/rdf-encoded/
18:49:13 <simonstey> ericP: I need some way to say "I dont want to have to use sparql to express it" and I think "core" fits well
18:50:21 <simonstey> Labra: I think it's an issue to decide whether or not something has to use an extension mechanism (like SPARQL) to express it or not
18:50:31 <ericP> @pfps: "This is at odds with the "greedy" alogorithm defining the semantics of the SHACL high-level language (core)."?
18:50:36 <simonstey> ... I think multi-occurence has to be part of the core language
18:51:11 <pfps> ISSUE-57 says that ShEx has cardinalities over multiple properties, which I don't remember being the case
18:51:28 <simonstey> Arnaud: I would be happy to open all the raised issues at once
18:51:43 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-52, ISSUE-53, ISSUE-57-65
18:52:00 <hknublau> +1
18:52:07 <hsolbrig> +1
18:52:08 <Labra> +1
18:52:08 <Dimitris> +1
18:52:10 <kcoyle> +1
18:52:21 <pfps> some of the issues are rather silly, as they talk about things that already have a determination, but that doesn't mean that I'm against opening them
18:52:32 <pfps> +1
18:52:53 <simonstey> +1
18:52:57 <pfps> q+
18:53:45 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:54:05 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-52, ISSUE-53, ISSUE-57-65
18:54:45 <ericP> +1
18:55:51 <simonstey> Arnaud: peter agreed to co-edit the spec (or fragments of it)
18:56:51 <pfps> q+
18:56:53 <simonstey> ... he mentione that the foundation of the spec is split into bits and pieces and he emphasized that we/people may want to have a seperate & concise document that defines SHACL
18:56:55 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:57:30 <hknublau> +q
18:57:43 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:57:47 <ericP> +1 to seperate semantics
18:58:18 <simonstey> hknublau: we have already a file that contains all the detailed information in a sence -> shacl.ttl
18:58:27 <simonstey> s/sence/sense
18:58:49 <pfps> I don't think that an RDF document is adequate for defining the syntax of anything.
18:59:12 <simonstey> .. but some information isn't captured there, the current document is only compromise
18:59:20 <pfps> q+
18:59:24 <simonstey> s/../...
19:00:05 <simonstey> ... as a way forward I would suggest to look into the introduction
19:00:19 <simonstey> ... and try to find an agreement on the terminology
19:01:08 <simonstey> Arnaud: the sooner we nail down a terminology, we don't have this type of miscommunication while moving forward
19:01:18 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:01:28 <simonstey> ... peter wanted to introduce a formal definition in maybe a seperate document
19:02:36 <simonstey> pfps: I'm not saying (in this discussion) that the split into core/extension is wrong but I'm talking about taking out the formal underpinnings of SHACL
19:03:34 <simonstey> ... so if someone wants to precisely wants to know something about the formal underpinnings of SHACL he/she could look at a specific section as supposed to have it shattered across the whole document as it is now
19:04:23 <simonstey> pfps: right now we have two definitions of a lot of things (e.g. english definition & sparql translation)
19:05:10 <simonstey> hknublau: the whole document is normative..
19:05:31 <simonstey> ... putting the definitions at the end may be redundant
19:06:40 <pfps> I'm not saying that there needs to be more normative stuff.  I would prefer less, actually.
19:06:53 <simonstey> pfps: has already complained that he was not able to find specific information in the document
19:06:58 <pfps> I'm willing to put together a table of contents and outline.
19:07:33 <simonstey> Arnaud: peter may propose how this fragment describing the formal definition could/should look like
19:08:38 <pfps> action: pfps to write outline of semantics document fragment
19:08:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Write outline of semantics document fragment [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2015-06-11].
19:09:12 <simonstey> Arnaud: ISSUE-65 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65
19:10:14 <simonstey> ... peter's proposal clearly defines the different concepts and we should leverage from that
19:11:27 <pfps> q+
19:11:47 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0014.html
19:11:56 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:12:35 <simonstey> pfps: one terminological issue is "what is a shape?"
19:12:55 <simonstey> ... in some proposals shapes can have sets of constraints
19:13:36 <simonstey> ... e.g. scope: Person, constraint: must have a name, shape: a person must have a name
19:13:54 <simonstey> ... but maybe we also need unscoped shapes
19:14:15 <hknublau> +q
19:14:19 <TallTed> "every *description of* a person gotta have a name" is (might be) a shape def; "every person gotta have a name" is (might be) a class def.
19:14:46 <TallTed> s/description of/representation of/
19:14:56 <simonstey> ... then we may also need two types of constraints -> the first one will take a focus node where the second one doesn't
19:15:37 <simonstey>  constraints without focus nodes are global constraints in holger's proposal aren't they?
19:16:03 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:16:39 <simonstey> hknublau: I agree defining shapes as a scope+constraint+(maybe filters)
19:17:25 <pfps> In my view there are two kinds of constraints, those that run over nodes in a graph and those that don't
19:17:57 <pfps> I think that these two need to be kept separate because they look and act very different.
19:18:37 <michel> michel has joined #shapes
19:20:31 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #shapes
19:20:44 <simonstey> hknublau: I dont't see how our approaches differ, I suppose that if we have a flexible scoping mechanism people won't have to use global constraints very often
19:21:48 <simonstey> pfps: graphs we get by http put/get are anonymous so the main graph won't have a URI
19:23:25 <simonstey> TallTed: either way, the system has to interact with the graph.. regardless of it being directly referenceable by a name or any other way
19:25:06 <simonstey> (peter&ted are arguing about naming/phrasing issues)
19:28:04 <simonstey> hknublau: we may have to force an invention that a uri has to be created by the system if it's not provided
19:28:30 <simonstey> pfps: we have to disinguish whether a node is supposed to be in the graph or not
19:29:40 <simonstey> Arnaud: I don't know how to make progress on this, any suggestions?
19:29:57 <simonstey> hknublau: we could start with the introduction
19:30:39 <simonstey> ... I think we are not fast enough
19:32:01 <pfps> In my opinion, working on particular (aspects of) issues results in slow progress.  I think that it is better to work on proposals that embody solutions to a related group of issues.
19:32:31 <simonstey> Arnaud: we have a glossary so maybe we should put definitions there.. but it's up to you
19:32:53 <Zakim> -kcoyle
19:32:54 <Zakim> -pfps
19:32:55 <Zakim> -Dimitris
19:32:56 <Zakim> -labra
19:32:56 <Zakim> -hknublau
19:32:57 <Zakim> -Arnaud
19:32:57 <Zakim> -TallTed
19:32:59 <Zakim> -hsolbrig
19:33:01 <Zakim> -simonstey
19:33:01 <Zakim> -ericP
19:33:02 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended
19:33:02 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, +1.705.327.aaaa, simonstey, +1.510.435.aabb, pfps, kcoyle, ericP, hsolbrig, labra, Dimitris, TallTed, hknublau
<Zakim> present: Arnaud, simonstey, pfps, kcoyle, ericP, hsolbrig, labra, Dimitris, TallTed, hknublau
19:33:05 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:33:05 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:33:05 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
19:33:11 <Dimitris> Dimitris has left #shapes
19:33:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:33:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/04-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:33:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:33:14 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/06/04-shapes-actions.rdf :
19:33:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pfps to write outline of semantics document fragment [1]
19:33:14 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/06/04-shapes-irc#T19-08-38