18:55:50 RRSAgent has joined #shapes 18:55:50 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/07-shapes-irc 18:55:52 RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes 18:55:52 Zakim has joined #shapes 18:55:54 Zakim, this will be SHAPES 18:55:54 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 18:55:55 Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference 18:55:55 Date: 07 January 2016 18:57:56 kcoyle has joined #shapes 18:59:02 pfps has joined #shapes 18:59:17 present+ 18:59:21 chair: Arnaud 18:59:24 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.01.07 19:00:38 aryman has joined #shapes 19:01:04 present+ 19:01:18 present+ 19:01:31 Labra has joined #shapes 19:02:42 hknublau has joined #shapes 19:02:58 regrets: hsolbrig 19:04:20 Dimitris has joined #shapes 19:05:26 i hear it too 19:05:33 * me too 19:06:51 present+ dimitris 19:07:07 present+ kcoyle 19:07:16 present+ labra 19:07:37 Arnaud: Wellcome back everybody...let's resume our work topic: Admin 19:08:03 Arnaud: we had a good meeting at the end of december 19:08:22 ...minutes that need to be approved 19:08:24 PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 10 December Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/10-shapes-minutes.html 19:08:26 the minutes all looked OK to me 19:08:33 +1 19:08:37 +1 19:08:41 +1 19:08:50 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 10 December Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/10-shapes-minutes.html 19:08:57 PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 15-17 December F2F: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/15-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/12/17-shapes-minutes.html 19:09:02 +1 19:09:05 +1 19:09:08 +1 19:09:10 +1 19:09:21 q+ 19:09:35 ack pfps 19:10:02 pfps: there was a issue 115 19:10:14 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 15-17 December F2F: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/15-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/12/17-shapes-minutes.html 19:10:14 arnaud: we can talk later about this 19:10:19 the description of issue 115 is rather vague 19:10:41 next week we will have our next telecon 19:10:53 next F2F will be somewhere in march 19:11:14 arnaud: for now there is one set of dates that seem to be working 19:11:39 ...ask people to go ahead and enter the response into the poll 19:11:52 ...before discussing issues topic: Tracking of Actions 19:12:22 I pushed out the due date for my action (i.e., no action on my action yet). 19:12:35 ...ask if there are some actions that could inform about their status 19:12:43 q+ 19:12:53 ack aryman 19:12:57 q+ 19:13:05 aryman: we had a little bit of discussion about the metamodel 19:13:07 I frankly didn't do any Shapes work during the break. I expect to get back into that swing next week. I arrived back home yesterday. 19:13:38 ack kcoyle 19:14:00 kcoyle: I have later changes to use cases and requirements 19:14:21 ...Simon and I could look at it and talk about it next week 19:14:53 a notice to the WG that the document is ready for review would help 19:15:59 arnaud: let's take a look at shapeClass issue topic: ISSUE-23: ShapeClass 19:16:20 arnaud: everybody but Holger voted to get rid of shapeClass 19:16:43 ...scopeClass could be improved but the group disagreed with it 19:17:26 q+ 19:17:31 ...there were othre people that weren't participating at the meeting, like Ted, that wanted to review it 19:18:11 ...the proposal is to drop ShapeClass 19:18:12 ack TallTed 19:18:41 TallTed: I have reviewed the thread about this and what I see from Holger is a frustration 19:18:53 ...not really agreeing with what is going on 19:19:27 ...Shacl is not to model the world...it is a way to model data 19:19:50 ...I want a proper phylosophical proof about that 19:20:12 ...its nonsense to say that a shape description is not a model 19:20:32 ...using a proper definition of fully formed ontology as a shape definition is valid use 19:20:59 ...we reuse things all the time 19:21:13 ...and we reuse them in context...in this instance of my data server it is... 19:21:25 ...something in my domain 19:21:36 ...context matters...shacl is a modelling language 19:21:55 ...when we say that this shape is something, then it is something in a model 19:22:09 ...I am not inclined to vote in favor of this resolution 19:22:39 arnaud: I understand but we don't want to go into that phylosophical discussion 19:22:51 ...we need to move forward one way or the other 19:23:29 ...what we have done is that when a shape is a class, the we can use the scopeClass 19:23:43 ...there can be a point to itself 19:24:01 ...I think you did valid points but I don't know if anyone will convince anyone at that level 19:24:05 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23, dropping ShapeClass 19:24:29 +1 19:24:30 +1 19:24:33 +1 19:24:36 +1 19:24:43 -0.9 19:24:59 +1 but woudn't mind a softer alternative 19:25:01 +1 19:25:16 I could live with dropping ShapeClass, but as written the inference rule to infer sh:scopeClass is still in. 19:26:03 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23, dropping ShapeClass, with no inferencing of sh:scopeClass 19:26:09 +1 19:26:11 -1 19:26:12 +1 19:26:19 +1 19:26:25 -0.9 19:26:33 +1 19:26:55 +1 19:27:23 PROPOSED: drop ShapeClass 19:27:38 -0.9 19:27:39 +1 19:27:43 +1 19:27:46 +1 19:27:49 -0.9 19:27:50 +1 19:27:55 +1 19:28:04 +1 but woudn't mind a softer alternative 19:28:16 RESOLVED: drop ShapeClass 19:28:49 arnaud: now let's attack the second part 19:29:22 STRAWPOLL: a) allow inferencing of sh:scopeClass, b) no inferencing of sh:scopeClass 19:29:26 q+ 19:29:30 q+ 19:29:49 aryman: can we have a recap of the inference that is being proposed? 19:29:55 ack aryman 19:29:57 ...to what degree is inferencing done? 19:30:11 making the inference is different from allowing it to happen 19:30:13 ...is it just a explicit type link or should there be other indirect relations 19:30:39 Holger: I believe it has the be in the shapes graph 19:30:58 ...it needs to make possible that the shape is also a class...so subclass of rdf:class 19:31:20 q+ 19:31:29 ...there is nothing that we have to worry about...it could have been done before 19:31:47 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-23:_Shapes_as_Classes 19:31:53 ack pfps 19:32:08 pfps: now we have just come out with a new kind of requirement 19:32:16 ...the type must be explicit... 19:32:26 it is different from every thing else in SHACL 19:32:46 Holger: I don't see that difference 19:32:57 pfps: you said that it must be explicit 19:33:34 Holger: any subclass can also be 19:33:47 here is the current spec text for inferencing: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shacl-rdfs 19:33:48 pfps: that's yet another different thing 19:34:05 ...now you are going to the previous shacl 19:34:11 we should use just one definition in all cases where we do "inferencing" 19:34:25 ...but now we are using a weird kind of rdfs modeling that's different from rdfs modelling 19:34:37 holger: in other places we have done that 19:34:53 ...if the inference is done, that's good, but that's not our business 19:35:10 pfps: this really increases our need to have rdfs reasoning 19:35:29 ack aryman 19:35:46 we should be consistent with sh:class : http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractClassPropertyConstraint 19:36:08 If SHACL depends on whether a node is an RDFS class then it should be doing RDFS reasoning to determine that 19:36:56 arnaud: Holger, it sounds like you need to take this offline and come with a proposal about what kind of inferencing should be done 19:37:03 aryman: I agree with what Peter said 19:37:24 ...if we do any kinf of class inferencing we should do it one way 19:37:40 ...if holger is happy to use that definition of inferencing we could just use that 19:38:10 ...if people want to do more inferencing then they should do that in another stage 19:38:26 Ted: a change could be to substitute rdfs:Class for sh:class 19:38:35 aryman: No, they are different 19:39:00 Ted: sh:class has the inferencing that Holger is describing 19:39:10 ...and that accomplish whay is desired 19:39:26 s/whay/what/ 19:39:31 sh:class is a property rdfs:Class is a class, substituting one for the other does not make sense 19:39:42 q+ 19:39:44 { ex:MyShapeAndClass a sh:Class, sh:Shape } would imply { ex:MyShapeAndClass sh:scopeClass ex:MyShapeAndClass } 19:40:26 aryman: if we limit the inferencing to what we already agreed then some of the objections could be solved 19:40:34 ack Dimitris 19:40:39 s/substitute rdfs:Class for sh:class/substitute sh:Class for rdfs:Class/ 19:40:41 sh:Class is not part of SHACL 19:41:13 ** Dimitris...didn't get what you said 19:42:13 @pfps - sh:class. case sensitivity is SpEcIaL. 19:42:28 arnaud: there is rule for some agreement... 19:42:37 ...we could leave it as is for today 19:42:52 ...we can use the proposals space to work on more possibilities 19:43:47 aryman: it is up to holger to clarify the proposal 19:44:44 holger: the main reason for me to accept the discussion is that Peter has threaten to reopen the whole WG 19:45:14 actually... what we do need is sh:Class (a rdfs:Class) which requires no reasoning beyond what is required for sh:class (a rdfs:Property) 19:45:27 pfps: I am confused about what has been proposed 19:45:45 ...if someone wants to propose something it must be better defined 19:46:00 OK I will start a proposal. topic: SHACL Draft 19:47:07 arnaud: where are we with the draft and the spec? 19:47:08 q+ 19:47:12 ack hknublau 19:47:13 I think that republishing soon is a good idea. 19:47:41 holger: as I wrote earlier I was in holydays so I regret to inform that I didn't do more work on it 19:47:59 ...after a few days I will have more free time 19:48:33 ...we didn't work yet about the metamodeling 19:48:37 q+ 19:49:03 arnaud: it would be nice if by next week you could inform about what has been implemented and what haven't 19:49:05 ack aryman 19:49:29 aryman: is there something where the resolutions are summarized? 19:49:53 arnaud: the compilation is in the web page 19:51:51 Resolutions page: http://www.w3.org/2014/shapes-resolutions 19:52:17 arnaud: let's talk about a issue that aryman brougt up topic: ISSUE-49: scope/unscoped shapes 19:52:25 aryman: a shape has a scope and a filter 19:52:46 ...and the usual constraints...the question is about the filter 19:53:01 ...we should make the filter to be associated with the constraints, not the scope 19:53:16 ...we first apply the filter criteria, then the shape passes 19:53:36 q+ to ask about shape annotations 19:53:43 the filter could be an if-then construction 19:54:03 ...filter's should be as preconditions 19:54:10 ...this related to issue 49 19:54:19 s/related/relates/ 19:54:32 I don't think that the status of filters has much to do with issue 49 19:54:35 arnaud: Dimitris, is that the issue you raised? 19:54:59 Dimitris: He wants aryman to clarify what he proposed 19:55:42 aryman: you are given a node and apply a shape to it...you evaluate the shape to it 19:56:28 A node validates against a shape if it does not satisfy the filter or does satisfy the constraints 19:57:12 aryman: the scoping mechanism is about computing which nodes in the graph should be checked 19:58:08 Dimitris: my issue was more about the scope relation with the filter 19:59:48 aryman: the filter is always used when you compute the scope but is also used when you apply the shape 20:00:06 Dimitris: my issue was about how to relate scopes with constraints and filters 20:00:14 ...and valueShape 20:00:48 aryman: scoping is a way to enumerate a set of nodes that you want to evaluate 20:01:25 ...once you get those nodes, you apply the filter 20:01:41 arnaud: the filter is like a pre-condition to apply the rest of the shape 20:03:18 aryman: if you don't differentiate between those two: scopes and filters then there is no need to have them both 20:03:18 q? 20:03:29 Why no straw poll? 20:03:33 ack ericP 20:03:33 ericP, you wanted to ask about shape annotations 20:04:30 ericP: there are two uses of this 20:05:15 ...we use the shapes as a typing mechanism on the nodes 20:05:28 ...there 2 ways in which scopes can be used 20:06:21 ...in shacl I've seem two uses of filters 20:07:39 arnaud: I think the proposal may not be so mature to do a straw-poll 20:07:55 ...it seems that the interaction between filters and scopes should be clarified 20:08:40 q+ 20:09:02 ack TallTed 20:09:13 Ted: I am not understanding the flow 20:09:25 ...I would like to see an example from arthur 20:09:28 q+ 20:09:56 ack aryman 20:10:09 aryman: this is described in the spec to some degree 20:10:16 ...but there is some ambiguity 20:10:46 ...there is a diagram in the spec 20:11:41 see the diagram above 2.1: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scopes topic: ISSUE-115: ClosedShape 20:12:40 arnaud: issue 115 about closed shape 20:12:53 ...there is no description 20:13:08 ...lets take to review it 20:13:22 q+ 20:13:27 ack ericP 20:13:46 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/115 20:14:43 ericP: the goal of closed shapes is to address the problem where one post something that is not what one expects, then it is rejected 20:15:02 ...that has more information than the one that is described by the shape 20:15:30 ...the point of closed shape is to have a flag that one is not interested in other data than the one that is mentioned in the schema 20:15:48 q+ 20:16:11 ack aryman 20:16:14 arnaud: part of the issue is at what level it is specified...shape? 20:16:43 aryman: I didn't quite get what eric said...is he saying that the current definition is wrong in the spec? 20:17:18 ericP: the current definition doesn't do everything that one would want 20:17:34 ...I would like it to be defined about predicates that are defined in the schema 20:17:35 I thought the point was to say "this node must only have relations that match what I've included in my shape, and nothing else; else it fails validation" 20:18:44 ericP: I support your observation that it should be associated with shapes 20:19:16 aryman: it is a kind of constraint but from a language design point of view it should be associated with a shape 20:19:27 ...it is mainly a syntax thing 20:19:39 ...about where we put this property 20:20:02 holger: it is at the level of constraints, instead of shapes 20:20:10 ...but both views could be valid 20:21:00 ** I lost what Holger said 20:21:17 ** Holger, maybe you want to write it? 20:22:00 hknublau: TO summarize, I believe all constraints that actually produce violations should be grouped with the same syntax, under sh:constraint, sh:property, sh:inverseProperty. 20:22:17 ... The case to introduce an exception for sh:closed is not strong enough IMHO. 20:23:30 ** thanks 20:23:32 q+ 20:23:39 ack pfps 20:23:58 pfps: asks about the status of the tests topic: Test suite 20:24:17 pfps: I have a bunch of tests that I would be happy to put in the test harness 20:24:33 ericP: I will show you what we are using in the ShEx test harness 20:24:36 https://github.com/shexSpec/shexTest/blob/master/validation/manifest.ttl 20:25:32 Isn't the latest spec at https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite ? 20:25:33 https://github.com/shexSpec/shexTest/blob/master/validation/manifest.ttl#L2674 20:28:47 ericP: describes the structure of the tests manifest 20:29:12 pfps: it doesn't fit well in shacl 20:29:35 http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/ 20:30:35 ericP: that's the original document that we are using for the ShEx test 20:31:52 pfps: I will take a look at it and write some tests 20:32:13 trackbot, end meeting 20:32:13 Zakim, list attendees 20:32:13 As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, pfps, ericP, dimitris, kcoyle, labra, TallTed, hknublau, aryman 20:32:21 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 20:32:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/07-shapes-minutes.html trackbot 20:32:22 RRSAgent, bye 20:32:22 I see no action items