17:57:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:57:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/08/20-shapes-irc
17:57:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:57:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:57:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:57:23 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:57:24 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:57:24 <trackbot> Date: 20 August 2015
18:00:24 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
18:00:31 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:00:54 <simonstey> present+ simonstey
18:01:05 <kcoyle> present+ kcoyle
18:01:26 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
18:02:09 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:03:43 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:04:46 <hsolbrig> scribenic: hsolbrig
18:04:50 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.08.20
18:04:54 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
<hsolbrig> regrets: aryman, labra
18:05:03 <hsolbrig> scribenick: hsolbrig
18:05:23 <hknublau> webex is not working for me right now.
18:05:26 <Dimitris> trying to connect to  webex and getting errors
18:05:58 <Arnaud> present+ hsolbrig
18:06:15 <Arnaud> present+ ericP
18:06:20 <Dimitris> present+ dimitris
18:07:50 <Dimitris> holger I just made it, maybe you can try again
18:08:31 <Arnaud> hknublau, are you joining?
<hsolbrig> TOPIC: Admin
18:09:25 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/F2F4
18:09:34 <hsolbrig> @arnaud: please check the wiki FTF list and make sure the expected attendance list is accurate
18:09:35 <hknublau> I dialed in via skype now.
18:09:42 <hknublau> present+ hknublau
18:10:09 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 13 August Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/13-shapes-minutes.html
18:10:27 <ericP> +!
18:10:29 <ericP> +1
18:10:41 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 13 August Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/13-shapes-minutes.html
18:12:34 <hsolbrig> arnaud: the FTF needs to start no later than 10 because lunch is fixed at 12:00 PM -- we can meet until 7:00 PM or so
<hsolbrig> TOPIC: SHACL FPWD
18:14:07 <hsolbrig> arnaud: pfps raised question about what documents are to be published, hknublau suggests 3, but pfps only wants 1
18:14:47 <hsolbrig> arnaud: 3 documents -- primary, rdf turtle file and generated document
18:15:09 <kcoyle> q+
18:15:15 <hsolbrig> ... what should we publish - one, two or all three?
18:15:28 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:16:09 <hsolbrig> kcoyle: do they have to be published together?  They will all be available?
18:16:45 <hsolbrig> hknublau: there are normative references from the primary to the other documents
18:17:36 <simonstey> q+
18:17:39 <hsolbrig> arnaud: it is possible to publish a document with references to working drafts, but would prefer all three.  Can everyone review all three before publishing?
18:17:40 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
18:18:34 <hsolbrig> simonstey: I think we should publish the vocabulary with the main document, so all three should be published together.
18:18:34 <pfps> present+ pfps
18:18:42 <pfps> q+
18:18:49 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:19:22 <hsolbrig> pfps: adding the other two documents is going to be a lot more reviewing...
18:19:58 <hsolbrig> arnaud: the turtle and vocabulary are generated together.  If you trust the transform it is only two documents
18:20:55 <hsolbrig> simonstey: what would it mean if we just published the draft?
18:21:56 <hsolbrig> simonstey:  If we published the main draft and the vocabulary later, that would also work
18:23:23 <pfps> There is information in the turtle file that does not appear in the vocabulary reference document
18:23:40 <hsolbrig> arnaud: we will stick with the current schedule and then decide whether we feel comfortable publishing everything or just the first one
18:24:09 <pfps> committed to reviewing what?
18:24:14 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  do we have two people who can commit to reviewing the spec?
18:25:02 <hsolbrig> arnaud: there is information in the turtle that aren't in vocab reference
18:25:18 <Arnaud> s/arnaud/pfps/
18:26:14 <hsolbrig> arnaud: lets focus on editors draft for the time being
18:26:48 <hsolbrig> ... due date is in two weeks from now.  Before FTF meeting
18:27:01 <simonstey> <-
18:27:02 <pfps> action pfps: review http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/
18:27:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Review http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/ [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2015-08-27].
18:27:11 <hsolbrig> pfps: I can commit
18:28:01 <hsolbrig> arnaud: I think arthur commited as well.  We should have 2 or 3
<hsolbrig> TOPIC: Test Suite
18:29:23 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  The test suite.  Issues would better be illustrated with test and it could narrow down discussion.  We need to have a couple of people working on the test suite...
18:29:58 <simonstey> afaik holger is actually doing this
18:30:20 <hknublau> These tests currently work: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features
18:31:10 <ericP> https://github.com/shexSpec/shexTest/ https://github.com/shexSpec/test-suite/ and docs at http://shexspec.github.io/test-suite/
18:32:35 <hsolbrig> ericp: The tests are written in ShEx, but Jose has a converter to SHACL
18:33:08 <hsolbrig> ericp:  We can convert them to SHACL.
18:34:24 <hsolbrig> arnaud: what do the tests in the repo do?
18:34:45 <hsolbrig> hknublau: manifest points to ttl file and checks output for T/F or specific results
18:35:23 <hsolbrig> ... covers interesting features but are not exhaustive
18:36:27 <hsolbrig> arnaud: when we get to the FTF we should have someone ready to walk us through the suite, how to commit, etc.
<hsolbrig> TOPIC: Disposal of Raised Issues
18:37:12 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-79, ISSUE-80, ISSUE-81, ISSUE-82
18:37:27 <pfps> I'm fine with opening them all
18:37:31 <hsolbrig> eric: two implementations tested the proposed tests
18:37:51 <kcoyle> +1 open all
18:38:03 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-79, ISSUE-80, ISSUE-81, ISSUE-82
18:38:52 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  Issue 79 came with a proposed resolution.
<hsolbrig> TOPIC: ISSUE-79
18:39:12 <simonstey> ISSUE-79
18:39:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-79 -- Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration -- raised
18:39:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/79
18:39:16 <hknublau> q+
18:39:23 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:42:08 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-79, per Holger's proposal
18:42:17 <hsolbrig> hknublau:  Issue 79 allows logic to be reused and repurposed in different places
18:42:26 <pfps> so this is syntactic sugar for those few who write templates
18:42:30 <hknublau> +1
18:42:39 <simonstey> +1
18:42:42 <pfps> 0
18:42:42 <kcoyle> +1
18:42:46 <hsolbrig> +1
18:42:47 <Dimitris> +0.5
18:42:48 <ericP> +0
18:43:00 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-79, per Holger's proposal
18:43:30 <hsolbrig> TOPIC: ISSUE-76
18:44:18 <hknublau> q+
18:44:32 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  involves execution order. pfps says it shouldn't matter, kcoyle didn't get a response from dc-architecture list
18:45:04 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:45:09 <hsolbrig> kcoyle: without the "friendly front end" we probably won't get much response...  ShEx?
18:45:39 <Arnaud> issue-76
18:45:39 <trackbot> issue-76 -- Specifying execution order and commutativity of AND and OR -- open
18:45:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/76
18:45:51 <hsolbrig> hknublau:  two topics -- syntax and semantics.  Syntax, we need to store in an RDF list because people expect order to be preserved...
18:46:02 <pfps> q+
18:46:47 <hsolbrig> ... whether we want to do it semantically, the change should be small either way.  If we change it, I would like to see a complete proposal
18:46:51 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:47:19 <ericP> q+ to ask if the shape level is an AND written as a repeated property while any nested ANDs are written as a list
18:47:33 <hsolbrig> pfps: a lot of things aren't ordered, so surprised that holger wants this one to be
18:48:07 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:48:07 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if the shape level is an AND written as a repeated property while any nested ANDs are written as a list
18:48:28 <hsolbrig> hknublau: you would enter something on the screen vs. rdfs list
18:48:37 <pfps> by the same logic, entering constraints in one order should produce the same order, but that is not the case currently
18:49:17 <hsolbrig> pfps: ordering of AND's matter -- they produce different results
18:49:47 <hsolbrig> @arnaud:  loosing scribe
18:49:56 <hsolbrig> s/loosing/losing/
18:51:03 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
18:51:54 <kcoyle> pfps: in shex there is a complex algebra for and/or, some domination so you can come up with the right answer if you vary the execution order
18:52:19 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: Close ISSUE-76, stating that execution order a) matters, b) does NOT matter
18:52:32 <kcoyle> ... referring to shex member proposal
18:52:47 <hknublau> q+
18:52:59 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:53:12 <kcoyle> hknublau: question to Peter: execution order matters with AND
18:53:33 <simonstey> we are returning a set of error messages
18:53:34 <kcoyle> pfps: if first produces error...
18:54:08 <pfps> users will care when things that can be fast take a very long tim
18:54:16 <kcoyle> Arnaud: as a user, I don't care - if behavior between engines is different (e.g. reports one error not the other) - just matters that they produce an error
18:54:30 <kcoyle> ... even if sequence is different
18:54:49 <simonstey> q+
18:54:53 <kcoyle> pfps: users will care if what should be fast takes a long time
18:55:04 <kcoyle> Arnaud: that's a quality of implementation question
18:55:25 <simonstey> q-
18:55:28 <kcoyle> pfps: depends on how trivial each branch is; common in queries; changing order influences execution time
18:56:15 <kcoyle> simonstey: if execution order doesn't matter, it's up to the tool to optimize, rather than follow an order
18:56:36 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: Close ISSUE-76, stating that execution order a) matters, b) does NOT matter
18:56:41 <pfps> b
18:56:42 <kcoyle> back to strawpoll
18:57:00 <simonstey> a) 0 b) 1
18:57:08 <kcoyle> a} -.5 b) +1
18:57:27 <pfps> a) -1, b) +1
18:57:31 <Dimitris> a)0 b)0
18:57:41 <hknublau> a) 0 b) 0
18:58:00 <pfps> q+
18:58:09 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-76, stating that execution order does NOT matter
18:58:12 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:58:49 <kcoyle> pfps: there is more to worry about if order does not matter; things are clearer if order is fixed
18:59:11 <kcoyle> +1
18:59:18 <simonstey> +1
18:59:59 <pfps> +1
19:00:11 <kcoyle> pfps: big issue is recursion through negation
19:00:17 <Dimitris> +0
19:00:24 <hknublau> 0
19:00:46 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-76, stating that execution order does NOT matter
<hsolbrig> TOPIC: ISSUE-65
19:01:23 <Arnaud> issue-65
19:01:23 <trackbot> issue-65 -- Consistency and cohesiveness of nomenclature (e.g., shapes, scopes, and constraints) -- open
19:01:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65
19:02:37 <kcoyle> terminology cleanup; Peter sent many suggestions in email
19:02:55 <kcoyle> Arnaud: what is a shape? what is a constraint? these need definitions
19:03:47 <kcoyle> ... options 1) stick to current draft and fix any problems in language or 2) move to Peter's draft definitions
19:04:02 <kcoyle> ... Holger replied: this could set us back some significant time
19:04:23 <kcoyle> ... but now is the best time to make terminology changes, before first public working draft
19:04:59 <hknublau> q+
19:05:08 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:05:38 <kcoyle> hknublau: terminology is consistent with shex and shapes
19:05:55 <kcoyle> ... don't see any benefit in changing
19:06:42 <kcoyle> pfps: current nomenclature conflates shapes and constraints
19:07:02 <kcoyle> ... shapes that are used both as shapes and constraints
19:07:28 <kcoyle> ... shapes class gets used in two places for two purposes
19:07:48 <kcoyle> ... 1) as in shex, and 2) what shex calls a constraint
19:08:22 <kcoyle> q+
19:08:35 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:08:42 <pfps> it is actually very hard to figure out what is going on in the current editor's draft because the document is very hard to figure out
19:09:26 <kcoyle> kcoyle: what would it look like if changed
19:10:23 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Aug/0096.html
19:11:47 <kcoyle> simonstey: is starting an implementation; used to the terminology, and doesn't see it has a big problem
19:12:27 <kcoyle> Dimitris: had some concerns in using shapes as classes, but haven't had time to read Peter's proposal
19:12:57 <hknublau> q+
19:13:46 <kcoyle> Arnaud: shape vs. class orthogonal; shape vs. constraint is more of a problem
19:13:55 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:14:21 <kcoyle> hknublau: counter-proposal needs to include turtle file and examples
19:15:09 <kcoyle> ... if there is a problem, then need to see explicit examples
19:15:30 <kcoyle> ... but not worth the effort
19:15:59 <kcoyle> Arnaud: paraphrasing Peter - better nomenclature would make editing of standard easier
19:16:38 <kcoyle> hknublau: draft now has appendix with terminology; but these are editorial issues, not technical issues
19:16:43 <pfps> q+
19:16:50 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:16:51 <kcoyle> ... but changing names is a huge amount of work
19:17:16 <kcoyle> pfps: Holger is apparently still working on document that is still under review.
19:17:50 <kcoyle> Arnaud: document is stable; changes are being announced, only done after resolutions
19:19:03 <kcoyle> Arnaud: time to review = document is frozen; but announced changes are reasonable
19:19:59 <kcoyle> pfps: have reviewed half, but not current version
19:20:26 <kcoyle> hknublau: what has changed?: terminology consistency, editorial issues, nothing substantive
19:23:30 <kcoyle> Arnaud: I did intend for the document to be frozen; however, if there are specific issues with documented changes, people can catch up.
19:25:13 <kcoyle> Arnaud: proceed; caution to Holger not to make broad changes to document; Peter continue review of version he has
19:25:37 <kcoyle> pfps: working on 10 August version
19:26:40 <kcoyle> Arnaud: re: nomenclature issue... Peter needs to produce an example to illustration change
19:27:14 <simonstey> +1
19:29:32 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:29:32 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:29:32 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
19:29:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:29:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/20-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:29:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:29:41 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/08/20-shapes-actions.rdf :
19:29:41 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pfps to review http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/ [1]
19:29:41 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/08/20-shapes-irc#T18-27-02