18:57:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:57:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/14-shapes-irc
18:57:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:57:38 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:57:40 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:57:40 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:57:41 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:57:41 <trackbot> Date: 14 January 2016
18:58:43 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.01.14
18:58:46 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:59:12 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
18:59:59 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
19:00:42 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
19:00:51 <aryman> present+ aryman
19:00:54 <Arnaud> present+
19:03:26 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
19:03:53 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
19:04:11 <simonstey> present+
19:04:34 <kcoyle> present+
19:05:22 <Labra> present+
19:05:35 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
19:06:01 <pfps> present+
19:09:10 <hknublau> present+
19:09:13 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
19:09:32 <hknublau> Webex took forever to start up…
19:09:46 <simonstey> topic: Admin
19:09:48 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 7 January Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/07-shapes-minutes.html
19:10:19 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 7 January Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/07-shapes-minutes.html
19:10:32 <simonstey> TOPIC: Disposal of Raised Issues
19:10:42 <simonstey> issue-117
19:10:43 <trackbot> issue-117 -- sh:class should not require that its objects be known to be instances of rdfs:Class -- raised
19:10:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/117
19:10:47 <simonstey> issue-118
19:10:47 <trackbot> issue-118 -- syntax errors should not be confusable with validation results -- raised
19:10:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/118
19:11:13 <simonstey> Arnaud: any questions/concerns?
19:11:54 <simonstey> ericP: I'm not entirely sure what's desired there
19:12:47 <pfps> q+
19:13:01 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:13:02 <simonstey> ... the issue said when it's something a class/shape.. at least that's what I thaught 117 was about
19:13:33 <simonstey> Arnaud: I think that's about the email pfps sent out and not the issue
19:14:11 <simonstey> pfps: there are a bunch of issues.. the document is unclear about what's going on and what should be going on
19:14:20 <simonstey> ... 117 is about the syntax
19:14:34 <aryman> q+
19:14:50 <simonstey> ... hknublau's spec. produces syntax errors when I think it should not to
19:15:19 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:15:46 <simonstey> aryman: is it hknublau's implementation that throws an error?
19:15:48 <hknublau> q+
19:16:11 <simonstey> pfps: his implementation throws a violation under some circumstances that seem questionable
19:16:57 <simonstey> aryman: I think it's more accurate to say it's a "ShapeError" on the shapes graph
19:17:45 <simonstey> ... it shouldnt be a violation on the data graph
19:17:47 <hknublau> q-
19:18:24 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-117 and ISSUE-118
19:18:35 <kcoyle> +1
19:18:35 <simonstey> +1
19:18:40 <Labra> +1
19:18:41 <hknublau> +1
19:18:48 <pfps> +1
19:18:57 <aryman> +1
19:19:00 <TallTed> +1 open both; I suggest rewording ISSUE-118 to something more like "syntax errors are currently confusable with validation results"; ISSUE-117 may need similar reword
19:20:01 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-117 and ISSUE-118
19:20:08 <simonstey> aryman:1st the shapes graph has to be validated and that's different from validating the data graph
19:21:03 <pfps> which issue separates syntax and validation errors?
19:21:20 <simonstey> ... the violation report should really just be violations on the data graph; I think there was an issue for this
19:22:13 <simonstey> Arnaud: please add any hints to former issues dealing with similar stuff
19:22:30 <simonstey> TOPIC: UCR Draft
19:22:43 <aryman> ISSUE-117 looks related to ISSUE-75
19:22:57 <simonstey> kcoyle: correlations between requirements and SHACL concepts where added
19:23:48 <simonstey> ... so for one I'm not sure if all of the UCs where already addressed
19:24:22 <simonstey> ... and secondly, I think I stumbled across some interesting candidates for tests
19:24:36 <simonstey> ... how shall we proceed?
19:25:11 <simonstey> Arnaud: either by putting a document in the testing space on github or create a wiki page
19:25:34 <simonstey> kcoyle: keeping it in github keeps everything together
19:25:40 <pfps> fine by me
19:28:48 <simonstey> Arnaud: everybody should give the ucr document a read until next week
19:29:06 <simonstey> TOPIC: SHACL draft
19:29:43 <aryman> q+
19:29:47 <simonstey> hknublau: the syntax/facts should be up-to-date
19:30:20 <simonstey> hknublau: (inverse) property constraints, ... sections are still kind of seperated
19:31:02 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:31:06 <simonstey> ... but I think we could publish it as is
19:31:19 <simonstey> aryman: I think last week we reached closure on issue 49
19:31:26 <pfps> I think that having a week for review is appropriate.
19:31:45 <simonstey> Arnaud: but we haven't it closed yet, right?
19:32:09 <simonstey> aryman: If we close 49 today I would like to have it in the draft before publication
19:32:37 <Dimitris> present+ dimitris
19:33:27 <Dimitris> q+
19:33:33 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:34:13 <simonstey> Dimitris: I'm fine with aryman's proposal
19:34:28 <simonstey> TOPIC: ISSUE-23: ShapeClass
19:34:32 <simonstey> issue-23
19:34:32 <trackbot> issue-23 -- Shapes as classes -- open
19:34:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:35:30 <simonstey> Arnaud: hknublau removed shapeclass and rephrased parts of the draft
19:36:06 <kcoyle> link to where in the spec pls?
19:36:12 <Arnaud> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scopeClass
19:36:16 <kcoyle> thx
19:36:18 <simonstey> ... is the current approach of inferencing acceptable for the group? (wrt. section 2.2)
19:38:51 <simonstey> pfps: this wording (I guess) was one of the reasons I sent out my email this morning
19:39:52 <aryman> q+
19:39:52 <simonstey> ... this stuff has to be nailed down so there is no chance to wiggle around
19:41:10 <simonstey> pfps: e.g., what does "prior to validation" exactly mean?
19:41:21 <simonstey> ... alot of things can happen "before" validation
19:41:32 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:41:51 <simonstey> aryman: I kind of agree with pfps
19:42:23 <simonstey> ... I think it would be clearer if we specify the notion of scope class more preciser
19:42:37 <simonstey> s/preciser/precisly
19:43:09 <simonstey> ... we haven't been really clear how the shapes graph is constructed
19:43:27 <simonstey> ... we had the discussion about scope node
19:44:06 <simonstey> ... the seperation between data/shapes graph is kind of application dependend
19:44:41 <simonstey> hknublau: I agree with aryman
19:44:56 <pfps> q+
19:46:03 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:46:09 <simonstey> ... of course, if you also validate the shapes graph, then you will get other/additional results
19:46:50 <simonstey> pfps: we have to be clear about any changes to the shapes graph
19:48:55 <simonstey> pfps: if shapes&data graph are put together, you could construct a shape that looks for scopeclass triples
19:49:29 <Dimitris> q+
19:49:35 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:49:43 <simonstey> ... if there are no side effects, we can be more relaxed regarding the processing order
19:50:12 <aryman> q+
19:50:37 <simonstey> Dimitris: what happens if you have "double scopes"?
19:51:08 <pfps> with individual scopes you really need multiple scopes
19:51:22 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:51:42 <simonstey> aryman: yes, scopes are unioned
19:52:16 <Dimitris> q+
19:52:22 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:53:01 <simonstey> Dimitris: but union is not consistent with the rest, e.g., constraints are conjunctive
19:53:49 <simonstey> aryman: yes but scoping is different.. if you want to eliminate things, you can use filters
19:54:10 <aryman> q+
19:54:33 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:55:59 <simonstey> pfps: no scope triples, class scope triples, and there is self scoping
19:56:20 <simonstey> ... the first two seem to be well-behaved
19:56:34 <simonstey> ... the third one might be problematic
19:56:47 <simonstey> ... i.e., when does self-scoping happen?
19:57:41 <simonstey> Arnaud: I would like to give aryman the chance to edit the draft (working in his proposed definition)
19:57:46 <pfps> kicking the can down the road?  sure
19:57:54 <simonstey> topic: ISSUE-49
19:58:00 <simonstey> issue-49
19:58:00 <trackbot> issue-49 -- Distinction between scoped and unscoped shapes -- postponed
19:58:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/49
19:59:32 <simonstey> aryman: I think everyone that expressed opinion seem somehow satisfied
20:00:46 <pfps> fine by me
20:01:12 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-49, adopting Arthur's and Peter's suggestions https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0024.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0025.html
20:01:14 <simonstey> +1
20:01:23 <hknublau> +1
20:01:32 <kcoyle> +0 (going on faith)
20:01:35 <pfps> +1
20:02:01 <aryman> +1
20:02:02 <Dimitris> +1
20:02:08 <TallTed> +1
20:02:12 <Labra> 0
20:02:21 <ericP> +0
20:02:30 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-49, adopting Arthur's and Peter's suggestions https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0024.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0025.html
20:03:10 <simonstey> topic: SHACL Draft
20:04:33 <simonstey> Arnaud: aryman is it possible for you to make the required edits to the draft early so that people can have a look before next meeting?
20:04:46 <simonstey> aryman: I'll aim to have it done by monday
20:05:03 <simonstey> ... or the day after
20:05:10 <pfps> It appears to me that 2.2 already conforms with the resolution on filters.
20:05:42 <simonstey> topic: ISSUE-115
20:05:44 <simonstey> issue-115
20:05:44 <trackbot> issue-115 -- Closeness is an aspect of a Shape, but the current syntax treats it like all other constraints. -- open
20:05:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/115
20:06:28 <simonstey> Arnaud: aryman added two option on how we could solve this issue
20:06:41 <hknublau> q+
20:07:09 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
20:07:11 <pfps> I agree with Arthur that the current syntax is less than ideal
20:07:37 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Dec/0057.html
20:07:40 <simonstey> hknublau: just wanted to add that there's a third option (found in my email)
20:08:29 <simonstey> strawpoll
20:09:33 <pfps> right now it appears that multiple closure constraints are possible on the same shape - how will that work?
20:10:21 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: a) sh:close on sh:Shape , b) sh:ClosedShape, c) sh:close on sh:constraint
20:10:31 <hknublau> @pfps someone could also have true and false for sh:close in option 1.
20:10:53 <ericP> a: +1, b: -.9, c: -.5
20:11:03 <TallTed> tangential -- sh:closed better than sh:close...  ["closed-ness" (vs "open-ness") more than "close-ness" (which reads like "how nearby") I think...  ]
20:11:04 <aryman> a) +1, b) +.5, c) +0
20:11:27 <hknublau> a) -0.9  b) -.5  c) +1
20:11:38 <pfps> a: +1, b: 0, c: -0.5
20:11:43 <simonstey> a)-0.5 b)+0.5 c)+0.9
20:11:44 <Dimitris> a: +1, b:+0, c:-.5
20:11:52 <Labra> a) +1, b) -0.5 c) -0.5
20:12:02 <TallTed> a) +1, b) -0.5 ,c) -0.5
20:12:07 <kcoyle> a) +.5 b) 0 c) -.5
20:13:39 <simonstey> hknublau: the problem is that every constraint (except of this one) uses the same strategy
20:13:55 <TallTed> q+
20:14:16 <pfps> I fail to see any implementation difference between the various options; what I see is a very large difference between closure and the (other) constraints
20:14:30 <simonstey> ... this approach would not have a "trigger property" -> you would  have to check for that everytime
20:14:34 <pfps> q+
20:14:54 <aryman> q+
20:15:17 <simonstey> hknublau: I don't see why this is so different from and/or
20:15:49 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
20:16:15 <simonstey> TallTed: I think that this is maybe more of an operational than a shape thing
20:17:26 <simonstey> Arnaud: so it should be a parameter to validation then? (agreed to by TallTed)
20:17:53 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:18:04 <simonstey> TallTed: it's definitely a thing that has multiple layers to it
20:18:20 <ericP> Σ: a: 5.1, b: -1.4, c: -1.1
20:18:51 <simonstey> pfps: everything that's currently a constraint is independent, but this doesn't work for "closedness"
20:19:06 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:19:10 <simonstey> ... so it's different from any other constraint
20:19:16 <simonstey> aryman: what pfps said
20:19:47 <simonstey> ... what we should be striving for is how the language looks to users
20:20:49 <simonstey> ... so there are two aspects, (i) implementer's pov (ii) author's/writer's pov, and I think we have to give them both appropriate weighting
20:21:14 <simonstey> s/weighting/weight
20:21:31 <kcoyle> THANK YOU ARTHUR!
20:21:58 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-115, adopting sh:closed on sh:Shape
20:22:03 <ericP> +1
20:22:09 <aryman> +1
20:22:10 <Labra> +1
20:22:13 <kcoyle> +1
20:22:15 <hknublau> -0.5
20:22:17 <TallTed> +1
20:22:17 <simonstey> 0
20:22:35 <pfps> +1
20:22:44 <Dimitris> +1
20:22:50 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-115, adopting sh:closed on sh:Shape
20:23:10 <simonstey> topic: Test Suite
20:23:48 <simonstey> Arnaud: pfps asked about the process of adding tests
20:24:31 <ericP> q+ to ask relationship between test-node-as-shape vs. test-graph test formats
20:25:03 <simonstey> Arnaud: ericP, how did we do that for turtle, etc.?
20:25:29 <simonstey> ericP: for turtle it was the editors, for sparql it was me & andy
20:25:58 <Arnaud> ack ericP
20:25:58 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask relationship between test-node-as-shape vs. test-graph test formats
20:26:01 <simonstey> ... certainly someone who can think of different kinds of permutations etc.
20:26:23 <simonstey> ... we already have >600 for shex
20:27:05 <pfps> q+
20:27:10 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:28:07 <simonstey> pfps: there is def. a tention of having a test harness that tests every fine-grained aspects vs. having one that only tests the most general test cases
20:30:09 <simonstey> [discussion on abilities of a suitable test harness]
20:31:06 <pfps> I propose a process something like: a proposed test that works for the majority of implementations is proposed and if not vetoed become approved, proposed tests where the implementations do not conform need explict discussion
20:31:27 <pfps> q+
20:31:41 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:32:01 <simonstey> pfps: I think we should encourage people to propose tests
20:34:23 <pfps> quodlibet uses something to vet pushes I'll see if I can find out what they do
20:34:37 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:34:37 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:34:37 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been aryman, Arnaud, simonstey, kcoyle, Labra, pfps, hknublau, dimitris, ericP, TallTed
20:34:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:34:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/14-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:34:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:34:46 <RRSAgent> I see no action items