IRC log of shapes on 2016-02-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:57:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:57:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:57:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:57:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
18:57:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:57:05 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:57:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:57:06 [trackbot]
Date: 11 February 2016
18:57:57 [Arnaud]
18:58:51 [kcoyle]
19:01:07 [simonstey]
19:01:28 [Jim]
Jim has joined #shapes
19:01:55 [Arnaud]
present+ Jim
19:02:20 [aryman]
aryman has joined #shapes
19:02:38 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
19:02:45 [pfps]
19:02:48 [Labra]
Labra has joined #shapes
19:03:13 [Arnaud]
regrets: Dimitris
19:03:14 [aryman]
present+ aryman
19:03:52 [TallTed]
19:04:06 [Labra]
19:04:26 [Arnaud]
19:04:32 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
19:04:52 [simonstey]
19:05:21 [aryman]
scribe: aryman
19:05:34 [aryman]
scribeNick: aryman
19:06:16 [aryman]
TOPIC: Admin
19:06:19 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 4 February 2016 Telecon:
19:06:25 [pfps]
minutes looked OK to me
19:06:55 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 4 February 2016 Telecon:
19:07:24 [aryman]
TOPIC: New Member
19:07:47 [aryman]
Arnaud: Welcome Jim Amsden from IBM, working on OSLC
19:09:41 [aryman]
Jim: I've had a long-term interest in semantic web and it has recently become a job responsibility at OSLC and Linked Data.
19:10:04 [aryman]
TOPIC: Public Mailing List Feedback
19:11:12 [aryman]
kcoyle: We do not have a mailing list that has the usual name, specifically they expected "comments" in the name
19:11:35 [aryman]
kcoyle: We have been using the mailing from the initial workshop
19:12:14 [aryman]
Arnaud: Eric and I decided to continue to use that public list for comments
19:13:37 [aryman]
kcoyle: We should update the description displayed by the archives
19:15:08 [aryman]
Arnaud: Eric will update the mailing list description to include comments on the specs
19:16:09 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-121 Should the SHACL owl:Ontology include the # character
19:16:47 [aryman]
TOPIC: Disposal of Raised Issue
19:16:52 [aryman]
19:16:59 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:17:50 [simonstey]
19:18:03 [TallTed] as Simon noted in the Agenda...
19:18:09 [simonstey]
19:18:32 [aryman]
19:18:44 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
19:19:43 [TallTed]
+1 open it
19:19:48 [simonstey]
19:19:59 [Labra]
19:20:02 [aryman]
19:20:09 [kcoyle]
19:20:39 [Jim]
19:20:44 [pfps]
19:20:53 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-121 Should the SHACL owl:Ontology include the # character
19:21:09 [Arnaud]
19:21:09 [trackbot]
issue-122 -- Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)? -- raised
19:21:09 [trackbot]
19:22:47 [kcoyle]
no, shows sound coming from you on webex
19:23:18 [aryman]
19:23:22 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:23:42 [ericP]
aryman: i see no reason not to publish a shapes file
19:24:08 [ericP]
Jim: we use these a lot in OSLC, makes the tools more dynamic
19:24:54 [aryman]
19:25:02 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:26:09 [aryman]
aryman: we should allow another WG member to create the shapes file
19:26:48 [aryman]
Arnaud: let's see how much time this takes away for the WG
19:27:01 [aryman]
19:27:14 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-122, as is, we can revisit this if it becomes a problem later on
19:27:23 [aryman]
19:27:24 [pfps]
19:27:26 [ericP]
19:27:26 [simonstey]
19:27:30 [Jim]
19:27:32 [kcoyle]
19:27:37 [hknublau]
19:27:37 [TallTed]
19:27:44 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-122, as is, we can revisit this if it becomes a problem later on
19:27:47 [hknublau]
19:30:09 [aryman]
19:30:24 [simonstey]
19:30:24 [trackbot]
issue-78 -- Should SHACL support marking classes as abstract -- open
19:30:24 [trackbot]
19:32:19 [aryman]
19:32:29 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:33:46 [ericP]
19:33:50 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
19:34:42 [aryman]
aryman: You could create a shape that checked for direct instances of a class and reported a violation.
19:35:35 [aryman]
ericP: We considered doing this in ShEx but pulled it out. It was used to prevent matching a base class instead of a subclass.
19:36:55 [aryman]
Arnaud: do we can a Use Case or Requirement?
19:37:02 [aryman]
s /can/have/
19:38:15 [aryman]
Jim: this could be useful in Change Management
19:38:27 [simonstey]
we dont have a uc for that
19:38:39 [aryman]
Arnaud: Do we have an accepted Requirement in our UCR spec?
19:38:42 [simonstey]
*no recorded one
19:38:46 [pfps]
I don't remember any use cases for this
19:39:45 [kcoyle]
I don't see anything explicit in the use cases
19:39:52 [aryman]
19:40:24 [ericP]
the use case could start "suppose there were a language for constraining RDF graphs..."
19:40:37 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:44:46 [TallTed]
19:46:21 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
19:48:27 [aryman]
TallTed: several people have expressed requirements, and expressed possibly ways to address them, so we should discuss it further and work towards adding a Requirement
19:48:55 [aryman]
Arnaud: we need someone who cares enough to work on it further
19:50:39 [aryman]
aryman: If the solution to this requirement could be based on a shape then that would remove the objection to Holger's solution which encroaches on the modelling space
19:51:41 [aryman]
hknublau: A shape solution would break down in the presence of RDFS inferencing since rdf:type links would be added
19:51:53 [aryman]
19:52:39 [aryman]
Arnaud: Simon raised the requirement to apply constraints to each member of an rdf:List
19:53:02 [simonstey]
19:53:32 [aryman]
Arnaud: Holger objected on the grounds that this further expands the scope and can be solved using the extension mechanism
19:54:00 [aryman]
Simon: we do have use cases but the spec is unclear about how to handle lists
19:55:10 [TallTed]
19:55:10 [trackbot]
issue-119 -- Defining constraints on (values of) rdf:Lists -- open
19:55:10 [trackbot]
19:55:11 [Arnaud]
19:56:24 [aryman]
Simon: I am concerned that the spec is currently not addressing the accepted List requirements
19:57:55 [aryman]
hknublau: the language is already large and adding Lists were require more development and test cases. I can imagine many more similar types of requirements. We have the extension mechanism so we can defer it or let the community address it?
19:58:11 [pfps]
got to go
19:58:36 [aryman]
Arnaud: You ask for more features so what is you criterion for making the language larger?
19:59:12 [simonstey]
19:59:14 [aryman]
hknublau: I proposed the sh:abstract feature a long time ago. I now want the language to stabilize.
19:59:17 [Arnaud]
ack simonstey
19:59:52 [aryman]
Arnaud: Yet you disagreed when I proposed to close the sh:abstract issue.
20:00:46 [aryman]
simonstey: We do have the List requirements so we need to make a statement about how to address them.
20:01:19 [aryman]
Arnaud: We could add a section to the spec about how to deal with Lists.
20:01:42 [kcoyle]
20:01:49 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
20:02:10 [TallTed]
20:02:33 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
20:02:50 [aryman]
kcoyle: Lists are very important in the DC community but we don't have enough experience about how to deal with them in shapes. I am OK to leave this to the extension mechanism.
20:03:24 [aryman]
TallTed: We still have one year so I don't see the need to close this issue now.
20:03:40 [simonstey]
which suffices my issue btw
20:03:43 [aryman]
Arnaud: We have a lot of issues open and we need to close some.
20:04:12 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-119, not expanding core to handle lists but adding a section on how to do so using the extension mechanism
20:04:16 [hknublau]
20:04:17 [ericP]
20:04:20 [aryman]
20:04:21 [simonstey]
20:04:21 [kcoyle]
20:04:23 [Labra]
20:04:28 [TallTed]
20:04:50 [Jim]
20:04:57 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-119, not expanding core to handle lists but adding a section on how to do so using the extension mechanism
20:06:35 [aryman]
20:06:35 [trackbot]
ISSUE-47 -- Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? -- open
20:06:35 [trackbot]
20:06:49 [hknublau]
20:07:10 [hknublau]
20:07:23 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
20:08:22 [aryman]
20:09:00 [aryman]
hknublau: There are many use cases that having access to the shapes graph helps.
20:09:10 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:09:56 [ericP]
aryman: the fact that we have the shapes graph as an RDF graph is actually an accident
20:10:19 [ericP]
... we could have taken a different tragectory that doesn't use an RDF graph (e.g. ShEx)
20:10:31 [ericP]
... but since we used love RDF, we used RDF
20:10:54 [ericP]
... in order to get access to the shapes graph, the shacl processor has to be tightly coupled to the store
20:11:01 [hknublau]
20:11:28 [ericP]
... access to the shapes graph would eliminate loose-coupling e.g. queries to dbpedia
20:11:50 [ericP]
... in principle, you could do that, but the SHACL processor would have to generate more complex SPARQL queries
20:12:28 [ericP]
... i think we should have one language binding providing access to the shapes graph
20:12:50 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
20:14:22 [aryman]
hknublau: Agree that this is a language binding issue. A SHACL processor can analyze each query and detect access to the shapes graph.
20:14:47 [kcoyle]
20:15:47 [aryman]
Arnaud; Should access to the shapes graph be the default?
20:15:57 [aryman]
20:16:14 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
20:16:51 [aryman]
hknublau: I would support having different levels of compliance, e.g. built-in only, extension in SPARQL, extension is SPARQL with shapes graph
20:17:24 [aryman]
kcoyle: In the DC meeting the issue of Linked Data Platform came up. Is this related.
20:17:27 [aryman]
20:17:31 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:19:04 [ericP]
aryman: i don't think this is really a Linked Data issue because LDP is often implemented on non-RDF systems, e.g. relational databases.
20:19:28 [ericP]
... but you could use this when there's a triple store
20:21:10 [aryman]
Arnaud: the proposal should be more neutral and specify what happens if the shapes graph is not available. We can't persuade everyone that the shapes graph must be present.
20:22:19 [ericP]
"if he shapes graph is accessible..."
20:23:06 [aryman]
20:23:38 [Arnaud]
20:23:38 [trackbot]
issue-57 -- Cardinalities on expressions or groups of triple constraints -- open
20:23:38 [trackbot]
20:25:41 [aryman]
ericP: this feature is based on patterns that frequently occur in languages, i.e. a group of things that together are optional
20:26:16 [aryman]
20:26:58 [aryman]
Arnaud: does the sh:partition constraint address this?
20:27:00 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:27:02 [aryman]
ericP: no
20:28:27 [aryman]
aryman: sh:partition would let you express an optional group
20:28:38 [aryman]
ericP: I'll try that
20:29:01 [aryman]
TOPIC: Implementations
20:29:28 [aryman]
Arnaud: I've added an Implementations page to the wiki. There are three known implementations.
20:29:47 [aryman]
Arnaud: Please add implementations that you are aware of.
20:30:56 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
20:30:56 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
20:30:56 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, kcoyle, simonstey, Jim, pfps, aryman, TallTed, Labra, hknublau
20:31:04 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:31:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
20:31:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
20:31:05 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items