IRC log of shapes on 2016-02-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:57:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:57:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/04-shapes-irc
18:57:23 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:57:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
18:57:24 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
18:57:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:57:25 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:57:26 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:57:26 [trackbot]
Date: 04 February 2016
18:57:30 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
18:57:36 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.02.04
18:57:47 [pfps]
present+
18:57:51 [Arnaud]
present+
18:58:34 [simonstey]
present+
18:59:49 [Dimitris]
present+
19:00:38 [pfps]
I see that there have been responses from the WG to questions in the public mailing list. This should be discussed today.
19:00:50 [aryman]
aryman has joined #shapes
19:00:56 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
19:01:42 [aryman]
present+ aryman
19:02:38 [ericP]
scribenick: ericP
19:02:49 [hknublau]
present+
19:02:56 [ericP]
present+
19:03:39 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 28 January 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-shapes-minutes.html
19:03:41 [pfps]
minutes looked fine
19:03:47 [aryman]
+1
19:03:56 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 28 January 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-shapes-minutes.html
19:04:09 [ericP]
topic: admin
19:04:35 [pfps]
q+ to talk about the public mailing list at the end of the admin section
19:04:43 [ericP]
topic: F2F6
19:04:48 [Labra]
Labra has joined #shapes
19:05:12 [ericP]
Arnaud: jose and i have conflict end of March
19:05:54 [ericP]
... Doodle indicates March 15-17 is the only candidate
19:06:04 [ericP]
... though several people marked it if-need-be
19:06:19 [ericP]
... we can accept this or look later into April
19:06:20 [pfps]
There will be times during 15-17 March when I will have to be in different meetings. I do not know how many hours this will consume.
19:06:40 [ericP]
... we can aim for another meeting in June
19:07:01 [ericP]
... which leaves the summer off
19:07:53 [kcoyle]
march seems fine
19:07:56 [aryman]
q+
19:08:02 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:08:02 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to talk about the public mailing list at the end of the admin section
19:08:14 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:08:36 [simonstey]
+1 for march 15-17
19:08:39 [ericP]
Arnaud: is there a set of issues that require a set of issues to resolve?
19:09:04 [ericP]
s/require a set of/require a f2f/
19:09:19 [pfps]
recursive shapes??
19:09:29 [ericP]
Arnaud: holger asserted that there's one major issue left - issue 23
19:09:42 [ericP]
... having f2f's is not manditory.
19:09:49 [hknublau]
I am not keen on F2F meetings unless needed (time zone is killing me).
19:09:54 [ericP]
... f2fs are a way to make more progress
19:10:29 [ericP]
aryman: i wonder if instead of a F2F meeting we could have extended meetings with required prep
19:10:43 [ericP]
... it might not interest everyone
19:11:04 [hknublau]
+1 to longer regular meetings
19:11:09 [ericP]
Arnaud: reserving peoples' time is difficult
19:11:20 [ericP]
... i'm afraid it will drag on
19:11:34 [ericP]
... that said, i'm here to help, not to force people to meet
19:12:28 [ericP]
hknublau: my impression is that we have all the open issues behind us
19:12:55 [kcoyle]
q+
19:13:27 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
19:13:45 [ericP]
Arnaud: we could say "after the weekly call, i want to discuss X; those interersted please linger"
19:14:13 [ericP]
kcoyle: it seems that during the weekly calls, we discuss stuff without completing them
19:15:00 [ericP]
Arnaud: apart from the end of the call, in most weekly calls, if we don't resolve something it's because folks need more time
19:15:11 [ericP]
... f2fs don't help much in that regard
19:15:29 [ericP]
... it's more to do with extracting bigger bandwidth for a few days
19:15:47 [ericP]
... i'm hearing several folks propose that we don't schedule a F2F
19:15:58 [aryman]
q+
19:16:02 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:16:28 [ericP]
aryman: i like the idea of using the regular call to go deeper into specific issues
19:16:32 [simonstey]
+30 minutes after the regular call for certain topics seems reasonable
19:16:41 [ericP]
... easier to leverage this time slot than to schedule others
19:17:05 [pfps]
fine by me to not schedule the march F2F
19:17:33 [ericP]
Arnaud: so do we cancel the next F2F?
19:17:41 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Put F2F6 on hold indefinitely, we'll have ad hoc calls instead
19:17:44 [pfps]
+1
19:17:48 [aryman]
+1
19:17:49 [simonstey]
+1
19:17:55 [ericP]
+1
19:17:56 [kcoyle]
+1
19:17:56 [hknublau]
+1
19:18:04 [Labra]
+1
19:18:28 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Put F2F6 on hold indefinitely, we'll have ad hoc calls instead
19:18:43 [Dimitris]
+1
19:19:33 [ericP]
topic: DC shapes meeting
19:20:36 [Arnaud]
http://www.meetup.com/semweb-31/events/228584769/
19:20:53 [ericP]
Arnaud: Dave McComb and Dan Carey giving a DC meeting talk "SHACL Up with Shapely RDF" about their implementation
19:21:03 [ericP]
... if they have one, maybe there are others
19:21:08 [aryman]
q+
19:21:17 [ericP]
hknublau: i saw a discussion on a ruby mailing list
19:21:32 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:21:33 [ericP]
Arnaud: we could have a wiki page about impls
19:21:56 [hknublau]
https://github.com/ruby-rdf/rdf/issues/268
19:22:02 [ericP]
aryman: it would be great if the whole WG attended because apparently he will say exactly what SHACL is
19:22:21 [ericP]
Arnaud: i'll put a section on the homepage for links to impls.
19:22:40 [ericP]
... at CR time, we can reach out to those folks
19:23:05 [ericP]
topic: public mailing list
19:23:39 [ericP]
pfps: we've flub everything respect to comments and we're continuing
19:24:08 [ericP]
... if you're going to reply to a q on the public mailing list, even trivial, you should tell the WG what you're going to do
19:24:18 [ericP]
Arnaud: i don't know that W3C has a policy
19:25:37 [ericP]
ericP: i think in SPARQL, we could answer non-controversial q's
19:25:59 [ericP]
... i don't think anyone asked non-controversial q's on the RDF public list
19:27:00 [ericP]
Arnaud: i propose a policy where you speak for yourself. if you know the answer, go ahead and help
19:27:07 [pfps]
q+
19:27:23 [ericP]
... if the issue is controversial, answer with care and/or bring to the WG for discussion
19:27:32 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:28:03 [ericP]
pfps: though this mesage appears to not be substantive, it is
19:28:12 [ericP]
... robert is owed a WG response
19:28:36 [ericP]
... it's substantive, the first, all the things that indicate that the WG should be responding with care
19:31:13 [ericP]
Arnaud: doesn't have to be so rigid. we can follow the list and if we disagree, we can respond with "not discussed yet; follow-up pending"
19:31:32 [aryman]
q+
19:31:32 [ericP]
pfps: if it works; it works. if not, it can fail very badly
19:31:49 [ericP]
... controvial hides in lots of places
19:31:55 [ericP]
q+
19:32:35 [ericP]
pfps: the public-rdf-shapes list is the way for the public to address the WG
19:33:05 [ericP]
... when we go to the end, we need to go through a very formal process
19:33:22 [ericP]
Arnaud: pfps is referring to "disposition of comments"
19:33:47 [ericP]
... we used to have a phase called "last call" where folks have to say whether the commenter was satisfied with the commenter
19:33:57 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:34:03 [ericP]
... it's a way to make sure that W3C hasn't closed itself from the rest of the world
19:34:48 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
19:34:53 [ericP]
aryman: i saw that note and no one replied for three days, and since it was about an edit i'd just made, ithoguht i was qualified to respond
19:35:54 [kcoyle]
q+
19:37:29 [ericP]
ericP: in RDF and SPARQL, i'd negotiate a wording change (or none) and when they commenter was satisfied, take it to the WG
19:37:38 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
19:37:45 [ericP]
Arnaud: i think pfpf's issue is in the case where is no change
19:38:07 [ericP]
kcoyle: if we want to get comments, we have to respond or folks will get discouraged
19:38:27 [ericP]
... we need someone to at least say that we've seen the comment and that we're thinking about it
19:38:45 [ericP]
Arnaud: from that point of view, i was happy to see that aryman responded
19:39:13 [ericP]
kcoyle: but within ourselves, we haven't agreed on a mechanism for responding to comments
19:39:37 [kcoyle]
I nominate Arthur for that
19:39:42 [ericP]
Arnaud: does anyone want to volunteer to respond?
19:40:07 [pfps]
I'm happy to provide acks as necessary.
19:40:07 [aryman]
@kcoyle what have I done to offend you?
19:40:10 [simonstey]
which again will cost us some precious wg time
19:40:55 [ericP]
... if you think it's controversial, you can say "good question; i've raised an issue"
19:41:35 [ericP]
... i think 99% of the cases will be fine
19:41:54 [ericP]
... of course anyone can respond if they see an email sitting there
19:42:07 [ericP]
pfps: i'll wait for the next train to jump off the tracks
19:42:37 [ericP]
topic: ISSUE-117: non-classes as classes
19:42:59 [ericP]
Arnaud: we might have resolved 117 given more time -- resuming conversation
19:43:10 [hknublau]
q+
19:43:30 [ericP]
... there was an issue with how the spec says that the object sh:class MUST be classes
19:43:40 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:43:52 [ericP]
... propose to make this MUST a SHOULD
19:44:12 [ericP]
hknublau: we should lift the requirement that has sh:property
19:44:28 [pfps]
Holger appears to be arguing against SHOULD
19:45:06 [ericP]
... the cases where the range is supposed to be an rdfs:Class or an rdfs:Property shoule be turned into a warning
19:45:10 [hknublau]
no, should is good
19:45:42 [ericP]
Arnaud: just saying "SHOULD" doesn't say how implementors admonish users
19:46:12 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-117, changing MUST to SHOULD in: Section 3.1.1 sh:class "The values of sh:class must be classes (instances of rdfs:Class)." and changing MUST to SHOULD where we say that sh:property must be rdfs:property
19:46:17 [pfps]
q+
19:46:21 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:46:31 [ericP]
pfps: i think that's too strong
19:46:50 [aryman]
s/sh:property/sh:predicate/
19:47:12 [aryman]
s/rdfs:property/rdf:Property/
19:48:11 [simonstey]
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#template-arguments
19:49:50 [aryman]
neither the shapes graph nor the data graph may have a triple like ex:loves a rdf:Property
19:50:04 [aryman]
q+
19:50:38 [aryman]
say "is expected to be" or "is normally"
19:51:06 [aryman]
q+
19:51:40 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:52:21 [ericP]
aryman: i think that pfps is that there's really no requirement that a validator GET the ontology or that a data graph contain the ontology
19:52:25 [hknublau]
q+
19:52:26 [pfps]
there is no need for an ontology in SHACL validation
19:52:28 [ericP]
... SHOULD is misleading
19:52:39 [ericP]
... we're not doing inferencing
19:52:47 [TallTed]
{ :John :Mary :loves } ?
19:52:58 [ericP]
... i think we should SHOULDn't say "should"
19:53:20 [simonstey]
is assumed to be a property?
19:53:36 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:53:47 [ericP]
... we could say "the object of the sh:property is typically a property"
19:53:53 [ericP]
hknublau: i can live with that
19:54:08 [pfps]
q+
19:54:12 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:54:15 [ericP]
... all we need is an RDFS range on sh:property to know that the object is a property
19:54:34 [ericP]
pfps: hknublau is talking about a particular use of SHACL
19:55:09 [ericP]
... there are others, e.g. describing the output of web processes, which don't expect anything about rdf:Properties
19:55:30 [ericP]
Arnaud: if we can't agree, we can remove it altogether
19:55:31 [aryman]
q+
19:55:38 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:55:42 [ericP]
hknublau: so what about the range statement?
19:55:59 [ericP]
aryman: this is near the vocab discussion around issue-95
19:56:15 [ericP]
... we're discussing what sh:Class or sh:predicate means
19:56:43 [ericP]
... it's appropriate for us to add a range to say that the object of sh:predicate is a property
19:57:00 [ericP]
... unless we were expecting a reasoner to do something with it, it has no impact
19:57:13 [ericP]
... we're free to put that sort of information in the vocabulary
19:57:37 [ericP]
Arnaud: we have a section on the relationship between SHACL and RDFS
19:57:45 [ericP]
... can we add a bit of text here?
19:57:58 [ericP]
aryman: we've already said that we don't rely on a reasoner
19:58:26 [ericP]
... so whatever we put in the vocabulary will have no effect
19:58:52 [ericP]
... the whole point of issue-23 was to figure out what reasoning we do
19:59:01 [ericP]
... we count on 0 inferencing
20:00:38 [simonstey]
+1 to rdfs:range
20:02:07 [ericP]
pfps: literals and blank nodes can be properties
20:02:16 [ericP]
... nothing prevents them from being properties
20:02:33 [ericP]
hknublau: let's not get into philosophy
20:02:52 [ericP]
pfps: if you declare it, you're making a strong statement about the future
20:02:57 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-117, dropping from Section 3.1.1 sh:class the sentence "The values of sh:class must be classes (instances of rdfs:Class)." and any assertions that sh:predicate must be an rdfs:Property
20:03:14 [ericP]
aryman: there's benefit either way
20:03:34 [ericP]
hknublau: with TBC, we'll add triples
20:03:53 [pfps]
close enough
20:03:59 [aryman]
+1
20:04:07 [hknublau]
+1
20:04:09 [simonstey]
+1
20:04:09 [ericP]
+1
20:04:10 [Dimitris]
+1
20:04:13 [Labra]
+1
20:04:14 [TallTed]
+0.5
20:04:14 [pfps]
+1
20:04:16 [kcoyle]
+1
20:04:30 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-117, dropping from Section 3.1.1 sh:class the sentence "The values of sh:class must be classes (instances of rdfs:Class)." and any assertions that sh:predicate must be an rdfs:Property
20:05:03 [ericP]
topic: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications
20:05:28 [ericP]
Arnaud: hknublau raised an issue about how we mangae the vocab and turtle files
20:05:56 [ericP]
hknublau: as i was editing the turtle files -- up to six files:
20:06:33 [ericP]
... .. RDFS vocab distinct from shapes files
20:07:11 [ericP]
... .. shapes which constriant for SHACL-based tools how these shapes can be composed
20:07:21 [ericP]
... .. extension mechanism
20:07:33 [ericP]
... .. SPARQL-related extension
20:08:03 [aryman]
q+
20:08:05 [ericP]
Arnaud: i don't think we want to overshoot.
20:08:08 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:08:22 [ericP]
aryman: i did reply:
20:08:36 [ericP]
... any term in our vocab should be in a vocab file
20:08:48 [ericP]
... for constraints, we have built-in constraints and we have extensions
20:10:35 [ericP]
... we could still stick the sparql defns in another file, importing the basing turtle file
20:10:43 [ericP]
... shapes go into a separate file
20:11:42 [ericP]
... all i'm suggesting is that the sparql implementations go in a separate file as they're not normative; just an example implementation
20:11:56 [ericP]
hknublau, i'd want to implement them in SHACL
20:12:04 [ericP]
hknublau: i'd want to implement them in SHACL
20:12:22 [ericP]
... people who are using shacl typically need to owl:import soemthing
20:12:37 [ericP]
... if every implementiaton has their own SPARQL queries, that's not going to be helpful
20:12:44 [ericP]
... i think this requires digging into the details
20:13:27 [ericP]
Arnaud: i'd like the two editors to come up with some options for us to choose from
20:13:27 [aryman]
q+
20:13:50 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:13:58 [ericP]
hknublau: three files is complicated but not so bad
20:14:14 [ericP]
aryman: we have a normative core vocab
20:14:28 [ericP]
... we have another vocab file which inlcludes SPARQL defns
20:14:49 [ericP]
... if TQ wants to improve upon them, they can import the core vocab
20:15:27 [ericP]
Arnaud: if there are points of contention (between hknublau and aryman), bring them to the group for resolution
20:15:43 [ericP]
... otherwise, on the issue, i understand you're working out the details of holding a meeting
20:16:09 [ericP]
topic: ISSUE-92: additive repeated properties
20:16:20 [ericP]
Arnaud: we need to make progress on this
20:16:36 [ericP]
q+
20:16:59 [ericP]
Arnaud: this important to the shex folks
20:17:11 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
20:17:14 [ericP]
... we need to discuss how we address this
20:18:50 [Arnaud]
ericP: ShEx has experiment aryman's proposed greedy algorithm and that meets our most important needs
20:19:07 [Arnaud]
... this could be extended later to something more exhaustive
20:19:44 [ericP]
Arnaud: so you've experimented with aryman's greedy algorithm and you're satisfied with it?
20:19:52 [aryman]
q+
20:19:55 [ericP]
ericP: yes, we can extend in the future if needed
20:19:58 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:20:15 [ericP]
Arnaud: what do we need to do to make progress?
20:20:42 [ericP]
aryman: we just need other impls, like hknublau's
20:20:59 [aryman]
q+
20:21:09 [ericP]
hknublau: i'm ok with this
20:21:09 [pfps]
q+
20:21:25 [ericP]
... we just need a precise definition
20:21:49 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:22:03 [ericP]
Arnaud: it seems this is more pallatible to most people
20:22:12 [ericP]
aryman: i can give this a precise definiton
20:22:28 [ericP]
.. you can think of this as a generalized definition of QCRs.
20:22:57 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
20:22:59 [ericP]
Arnaud: if you can draft the section in the spec, that'd be great
20:23:23 [ericP]
pfps: the syntax appears to be rather byzantine
20:23:49 [ericP]
... it probably indicates that our syntax needs refactoring in any case
20:24:05 [ericP]
... it would be ugly if we address this without a general syntax fefactoring
20:24:41 [ericP]
... now aryman's issue @@ may entail refactoring
20:24:47 [aryman]
q+
20:25:16 [ericP]
... it would be silly to hide QCRs inside partition just because they're available in partition
20:25:57 [ericP]
... adding it to our already baroque syntax makes this too expensive
20:26:09 [ericP]
... it would be nice to see a worked out proposal
20:26:38 [ericP]
... folks will have to implement this; it would be nice to make it easier
20:26:52 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:27:12 [ericP]
Arnaud: if we can get a draft from aryman, we can take that as the first step
20:27:33 [ericP]
pfps: this doesn't appear to add expressive power
20:27:55 [hknublau]
I think we should drop QCRs if we have partitions. Too redundant, and QCRs are not all that common IMHO.
20:28:43 [ericP]
... i.e. subsequent conjoints need a conjunction and a negation
20:29:09 [ericP]
aryman: i think the QCRs complicated the vocab
20:29:22 [pfps]
It appears to me that (partition (qcc min1 max1 r1) ... (qcc minn maxn rn)) is the same as
20:29:27 [ericP]
... partition allows us to just include min/max/constraint
20:29:44 [ericP]
... we don't have to introduce new vocab terms for the same concepts
20:29:49 [pfps]
(and (qcc min1 max1 r1) ... (qcc minn maxn (and (not r1) ... (not rn-1) rn))
20:31:03 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
20:31:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
20:31:03 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been pfps, Arnaud, simonstey, Dimitris, aryman, hknublau, ericP
20:31:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:31:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/04-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:31:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
20:31:12 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items