18:55:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:55:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/10-shapes-irc
18:55:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:55:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:55:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:55:07 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:55:08 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:55:08 <trackbot> Date: 10 December 2015
18:57:07 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:57:26 <simonstey> access code is the meeting number?
18:59:23 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
19:00:58 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.12.10
19:01:02 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
<Arnaud> regrets: hknublau, ericP, hsolbrig
19:01:14 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
19:01:36 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
19:02:44 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
19:02:51 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
19:02:51 <pfps> present+
19:02:59 <simonstey> present+
19:02:59 <Arnaud> present+
19:03:07 <Labra> present+
19:03:08 <Dimitris> present+
19:03:34 <aryman> present+ aryman
19:04:05 <kcoyle> present+
19:04:56 <aryman> I am having trouble with the webbed audio
19:05:08 <aryman> s/webbed/webex/
19:06:04 <Labra> Me too
19:06:34 <Labra> I can't hear anything...
19:06:45 <simonstey> you are not connected
19:06:46 <Arnaud> that's because you're not on the call
19:06:48 <simonstey> to audio
19:09:35 <TallTed> present+
19:09:40 <simonstey> topic: Admin
19:09:47 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 3 December Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-shapes-minutes.html
19:10:05 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 3 December Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-shapes-minutes.html
19:10:08 <pfps> Looked good to me :-)
19:10:18 <simonstey> topic: VF2F5
19:10:48 <simonstey> Arnaud: based on the input I got last week,  I revised the schedule but haven't filled it in yet
19:11:08 <simonstey> ... I already put the grid in place
19:11:36 <simonstey> ... 6h timespan / day for 3 days
19:12:20 <pfps> schedule seems to be fine
19:12:26 <simonstey> ... lunch break is reduced to 30 mins
19:13:39 <simonstey> ... I wanted to spend some time on looking at the important issues to discuss
19:14:05 <simonstey> ... may everyone have a look at that list and check whether something is missing
19:14:13 <simonstey> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/F2F5#Important_issues_and_meta-issues_to_be_addressed
19:14:49 <pfps> I think that the abstract classes thing is meta-model, but a change of title would be fine.
19:17:17 <simonstey> [aryman will look for the issues relating to abstract classes currently defined in shacl.ttl]
19:17:41 <pfps> I fiddled with that item
19:18:16 <simonstey> Arnaud: my goal is to update the agenda with specific work items by the end of the week
19:19:34 <simonstey> ... please note whether you are available for the VF2F at http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/F2F5#People_planning_to_participate_remotely:
19:20:02 <simonstey> ... I added categories to the tracker
19:20:22 <simonstey> topic: ISSUE categorization
19:20:56 <simonstey> Arnaud: issues can now be categorized according to https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/products
19:21:33 <simonstey> ... maybe some of the meta issues could be used as categories
19:21:59 <simonstey> +q
19:22:05 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
19:23:38 <simonstey> Arnaud: already existing issues can also be recategorized
19:23:50 <simonstey> topic: ISSUE-103: Syntax simplifications
19:23:53 <simonstey> issue-103
19:23:53 <trackbot> issue-103 -- Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? -- open
19:23:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/103
19:24:17 <aryman> +1
19:24:33 <aryman> q+
19:24:57 <simonstey> Arnaud: the syntax we currently have is pretty heavy
19:25:39 <simonstey> ... which is an area where e.g. ShEx proposes a way more compact syntax
19:26:03 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:26:44 <simonstey> aryman: I'm in favor of the simplification, but I don't agree with the proposal on how to simplify the definition of closed shapes
19:27:04 <pfps> q+
19:27:07 <simonstey> ... I would lift the closed property to be a property of the shape rather than one of the constraint node
19:27:28 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:28:09 <simonstey> pfps: RDF encoded syntaxes are ugly.. there is no way around that
19:28:26 <kcoyle> q+
19:29:13 <simonstey> ... I would like to have some sort of a principle onfwhat's going on here
19:29:13 <aryman> q+
19:29:28 <simonstey> s/onfwhat/of what
19:29:56 <simonstey> Arnaud: how much do you need to be able to say whether that makes sense?
19:30:00 <simonstey> pfps: everything
19:30:28 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:30:40 <simonstey> ... it's not about beautifulness but if it's round
19:31:22 <pfps> I do agree that a move away from classes to properties is a good thing, but this should be done uniformly
19:31:26 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:33:00 <kcoyle> +1 to arthur's approch
19:33:07 <kcoyle> s/approch/approach
19:33:15 <simonstey> aryman: I think we could go down the general direction of the proposal and let the editor's writing it down thoroughly
19:34:06 <kcoyle> +q
19:34:56 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:35:46 <pfps> q+
19:36:05 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:36:09 <simonstey> kcoyle: something has to be done to clarify what the default is CWA/OWA
19:36:44 <simonstey> [remove cwa/owa]
19:38:06 <aryman> q+
19:38:47 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:39:33 <simonstey> kcoyle: we really have to make it clear under which assumption we are operating, either cwa oder owa
19:42:05 <simonstey> Arnaud: we may fall into the realm of best practices, explaining what implications certain ways of representing shapes have
19:42:26 <pfps> q+
19:42:31 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:42:46 <simonstey> pfps: currently both shapes and constraints can be closed, afaik
19:43:45 <Dimitris> how will two separate closed constraints in a shape work?
19:43:53 <aryman> q+
19:44:03 <simonstey> ... but the name "closedshapeconstraint" may be misleading
19:44:05 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:44:17 <simonstey> aryman: in the current spec, the closeness is a property of a shape
19:46:01 <simonstey> ... but it depends on other definitions thus shouldn't be treated in the same way; I would make it a seperate kind of shape
19:46:01 <pfps> agreed, having closed sit on a constraint is likely to lead to confusion.  instead there should be a separate construct that closes a shope
19:46:19 <simonstey> ... we have to be sensible about the default
19:46:59 <simonstey> +1
19:47:02 <Dimitris> +1
19:47:05 <kcoyle> +1
19:47:38 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-103, accepting the proposed simplification except for closed shapes which should be treated differently
19:47:41 <Labra> +1
19:47:45 <kcoyle> +1
19:47:46 <Dimitris> +1
19:47:53 <simonstey> +1
19:47:58 <aryman> +1
19:47:58 <pfps> 0, major syntax changes need to be looked at only when there is a complete proposal
19:48:26 <TallTed> +1
19:49:02 <pfps> q+
19:49:08 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:49:18 <simonstey> Arnaud: we can reopen this issue whenever we think it's necessary and could even revoke the resolution
19:50:04 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-103, accepting the proposed simplification except for closed shapes which should be treated differently
19:50:15 <simonstey> topic: ISSUE-104: Union ranges
19:50:20 <simonstey> issue-104
19:50:20 <trackbot> issue-104 -- Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? -- open
19:50:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/104
19:51:25 <simonstey> I agree with pfps comment: "If this change is going to be made, then every case should be examined to see whether it deserves to have the same feature."
19:52:19 <simonstey> pfps: in a reasonable syntax there are ands and ors
19:52:26 <simonstey> ... with a nice and clean syntax
19:53:11 <simonstey> ... but we have the RDF pig, and we are proposing to shrink it by cutting out some fat but it may gets unrounder
19:53:32 <simonstey> ... the () trick only looks nice in turtle
19:54:08 <simonstey> ... here we would interpret rdf:list as or, but somewhere else we might treat it as and
19:54:46 <simonstey> ... so one would have to look over all possible occurences of such lists and check whether the comply with the proposed semantics
19:54:51 <aryman> q+
19:55:02 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:55:46 <simonstey> aryman: ofc it's just syntactic sugar, but we have to get the readers to actually read our spec (i.e. make it more appealing)
19:56:18 <simonstey> ... it's hard to go from nothing to full generality
19:57:53 <pfps> q+
19:57:56 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:58:39 <simonstey> [trade off between ease of use and ease of misuse]
19:58:47 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Yes, as suggested in the ISSUE (use rdf:Lists for multiple options)
19:59:04 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-104, as proposed.
19:59:25 <aryman> +1
19:59:35 <simonstey> +q
19:59:37 <TallTed> +1
19:59:45 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
19:59:46 <kcoyle> +.5
20:00:46 <pfps> -0 I think that invisible or is too dangerout
20:00:54 <Dimitris> 0+
20:00:57 <pfps> s/dangerout/dangerous/
20:01:38 <Dimitris> q+
20:03:01 <simonstey> +1
20:03:05 <TallTed> the word is "abstain"
20:03:07 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-104, as proposed but every case should be examined to see whether it deserves to have the same feature.
20:03:15 <simonstey> +1
20:03:26 <Labra> +0
20:04:25 <kcoyle_> kcoyle_ has joined #shapes
20:04:32 <aryman> +1
20:04:39 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
20:05:12 <kcoyle_> i lost power, back but just on irc
20:05:38 <simonstey> Dimitris: this may cause some difficulties for engines to parse the value of sh:class/datatype
20:05:55 <simonstey> ... I would be happier to have a seperate property for this
20:06:43 <simonstey> we could also approve it for now and dimitris raises an issue for that
20:07:05 <Dimitris> Close ISSUE-104, as proposed but by changing the SHACL properties to sh:classOneOf and sh:datatypeOneOf
20:07:32 <aryman> q+
20:07:36 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:07:44 <pfps> that is certainly more obvious
20:07:49 <pfps> +0.5
20:08:34 <simonstey> aryman: we should may use the term "in" to be consistent with our current spec
20:09:05 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-104, as proposed, using the properties sh:classIn and sh:datatypeIn, and noting that every case should be examined to see whether it deserves to have the same feature.
20:09:14 <aryman> like sh:in
20:09:20 <aryman> yes
20:09:22 <aryman> +1
20:09:23 <pfps> +0.2
20:09:37 <simonstey> +1
20:09:45 <Labra> +0.5
20:09:48 <pfps> +0.5
20:09:52 <Dimitris> +.8
20:10:00 <TallTed> +0.i
20:10:22 <pfps> In my opinion, anyy syntax thrust should be on a compact syntax, not on trying to make the RDF encoding less ugly
20:10:36 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-104, as proposed, using the properties sh:classIn and sh:datatypeIn, and noting that every case should be examined to see whether it deserves to have the same feature
20:10:39 <aryman> q+
20:10:52 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:12:18 <simonstey> aryman: this discussion and pfps' concerns maybe mean to discuss the notion of a compact syntax for SHACL at the VF2F
20:12:39 <simonstey> Arnaud: is there any other issue we should discuss?
20:12:54 <simonstey> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=RDF+Data+Shapes+meeting&p1=175&iso=20151215T1015
20:16:10 <simonstey> pfps: google phone is free, at least for north america
20:17:58 <aryman> is Foogle Voice the same thing as Google Phone?
20:18:10 <aryman> s/Foogle/Google/
20:18:16 <simonstey> [discussing reliability of and alternatives to webex]
20:19:09 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:19:09 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:19:09 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pfps, simonstey, Arnaud, Labra, Dimitris, aryman, kcoyle, TallTed
20:19:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:19:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/10-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:19:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:19:18 <RRSAgent> I see no action items