18:59:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:59:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/25-shapes-irc
18:59:16 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:59:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:59:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:59:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:59:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:59:19 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:59:19 <trackbot> Date: 25 February 2016
18:59:26 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
19:00:25 <Arnaud> present+
19:01:32 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.02.25
19:01:38 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
19:01:43 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
19:01:47 <simonstey> present+
19:01:57 <pfps> present+
19:02:28 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
19:03:04 <Dimitris> present+
19:03:07 <aryman> present+ aryman
19:03:15 <Dimitris> scribe: dimitris
19:03:35 <hknublau> present+
19:03:53 <kcoyle> present+
19:03:55 <jima> jima has joined #shapes
19:04:07 <TallTed> present+
<Dimitris> Dimitris: I have an open source implementation of SHACL people can try
<Dimitris> Arnaud: That's great, please, add it to the list on the WG page
19:04:35 <pfps> It would be interesting to know the implementation philosophy of Dimitris's implementation
19:04:38 <Arnaud> regrets: labra
19:04:46 <ericP> present+
19:04:52 <aryman> @Dimitris great news
19:05:08 <Dimitris> https://github.com/AKSW/RDFUnit/issues/62
<Dimitris> topic: Admin
19:05:17 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 18 February 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-shapes-minutes.html
19:05:33 <aryman> looks good
19:05:38 <pfps> looked fine to me
19:05:46 <Dimitris> arnaud: any objection to approve theminutes of last week?
19:06:06 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
19:06:09 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 18 February 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/02/18-shapes-minutes.html
19:07:38 <Dimitris> arnaud: there is a change in WG membership, Arthur is retiring from the WG due to other commitments
<Dimitris> ... on behalf of the W3C, I want to publicly thank Arthur for his contribution, we will miss him
19:08:25 <TallTed> sad to see you go, aryman!  you've made significant contributions to our progress.
19:08:46 <aryman> thanks
19:08:49 <Dimitris> sad to see you go as well
19:09:18 <jima> you will be missed
<Dimitris> topic: Formal Specification
19:10:28 <Dimitris> arnaud: Arthur had an action to draft a semantics document for the specification, I want to give the option to WG, instead of closing this action someone can take over
19:10:55 <Dimitris> .. is anyone interested to take over or should we close it?
<Dimitris> Arnaud: hearing none we will then close Arthur's action, anyone is still free to make a proposal later on if they want to
19:11:25 <Dimitris> topic: ISSUE-95
19:11:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-95 -- Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism -- open
19:11:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/95
19:12:10 <Dimitris> Arnaud: Arthur, Holger and Simon came back with two proposals
19:12:54 <hknublau> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_3
19:13:01 <Dimitris> ... let's discuss the agreements
19:15:05 <Dimitris> hknublau: we had a lot of redundant metaclasses and made very good progress thanks to Arthur
19:16:00 <Dimitris> ... we agreed that the term "template" is misleading and arguments have been renamed to parameters
19:17:02 <Dimitris> ... (... reading and explaining the proposal...)
19:28:05 <pfps> I thought that this was supposed to be a simplification!
19:36:47 <Dimitris> +q
19:36:55 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:40:22 <Dimitris> dimitris: asking when we use the constraints in filter if we need a different query (decided to take it offline)
19:41:36 <Dimitris> aryman: the motive for doing this was to avoid the same sparql code in different queries and holger tried to refactor that
19:42:22 <Dimitris> ... in holger's design the sparql engine has to do the surgery, it's a little more complex and requires more implementation
19:43:19 <Dimitris> ... easier to debug your queries too but the downside is that you might have 3 very similar queries but maybe it's not so bad
19:43:33 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#functions
19:44:12 <Dimitris> ... in my proposal it corresponds to simple rdfs classes
19:44:30 <pfps> q+
19:45:13 <Dimitris> simonstey: proposal 3 is much inline with arthur's proposal
19:46:01 <Dimitris> ... we already have defined functions in the spec and we allow users to define their functions
19:47:57 <Dimitris> ... it's kind of difficult, extending shacl should be different from using shacl and I'm inclined in option a
19:48:00 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:48:24 <Dimitris> pfps: I thought we would simplify but it's still complex
19:48:58 <Dimitris> ... our syntax is complicated and hard to understand
19:49:13 <aryman_> aryman_ has joined #shapes
19:49:48 <Dimitris> ... another complexity is the support for different execution languages that noone implements
19:50:19 <Dimitris> .. that's why I like Arthur's proposal
19:50:31 <hknublau> q+
19:50:32 <jima> q+
19:50:50 <pfps> q+
19:50:52 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:51:25 <Dimitris> hknublau: we have javascript support in spin already
19:52:21 <Dimitris> ... node validation functions are not that hard to implement and people can use the verbose approach
19:52:59 <aryman_> q+
19:53:08 <Arnaud> ack jima
19:53:09 <Dimitris> ... what I do not like about Arthurs constraint classes is that they are never instantiated
19:54:36 <Dimitris> jima: I have sympathy for adding complexity to solve problems, I need time to read the proposals more
19:54:47 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:55:40 <Dimitris> pfps: both proposals are not simple but I see Arthurs simpler.
19:55:44 <Dimitris> q+
19:55:47 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:56:36 <Dimitris> aryman: in my view the classes are instantiated, sh:property is an sh:propertyConstraint and are instantiated
19:57:20 <Dimitris> hknublau: then you need rdfs inferencing
19:57:30 <Dimitris> aryman: it will be an engine rule
19:58:15 <Dimitris> ... this will be how a shacl engine will treat a shacl program
19:58:26 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:59:27 <Dimitris> dimitris: in my implementation Arthurs proposal will be easier to implement
20:00:01 <Dimitris> arnaud: let's leave it at this for today
20:00:04 <Dimitris> topic: ISSUE-22
20:00:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- Treatment of recursive shape definitions -- open
20:00:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/22
20:00:35 <simonstey> what about http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#functions if we don't want/can process custom functions?
20:01:26 <Dimitris> arnaud: Arthur had an action for a recursion proposal and said he cannot deliver. We are free to be
20:01:47 <Dimitris> ... completely silent or have a statement about recursion
20:02:05 <aryman_> q+
20:02:19 <hknublau> @simonstey agreed, plus we decided to not limit ourselves to SPARQL endpoints. Furthermore, I believe implementations can just inject the ASK part into a new query template.
20:02:41 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:03:47 <Dimitris> aryman: I send a part of a recursion spec I did write. It was recursion for OSLC RS but SHACL is more powerfull
20:04:38 <Dimitris> ... there is a huge intersection of RS and SHACL and we can define recursion only on that part
20:05:10 <jima> q+
20:05:19 <Arnaud> ack jima
20:05:33 <pfps> q+
20:06:14 <Dimitris> jima: isn't the problem still there? (grey recursion areas)
20:07:14 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:07:15 <Dimitris> aryman: by defining recursion in a subset we move some obstacles in SHACL adoption
20:08:19 <Dimitris> pfps: Arthurs semantics are not tight to anything we understand (Z language)
20:08:50 <Dimitris> ... something in the lines of the RDF semantics would be useful
20:10:02 <Dimitris> (didn't hear Eric, voice was breaking)
20:10:07 <aryman_> q+
20:10:16 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:10:55 <Dimitris> aryman: we can be conservative with recursion like static analysis and reject all loops
20:11:54 <Dimitris> ... Eric is taking a conservative approach
20:12:38 <Dimitris> arnaud: what do we do now? will someone pick this up?
20:12:54 <Dimitris> ... if not we need to discuss how to close this
20:13:40 <jima> q+
20:14:04 <Arnaud> ack jima
20:15:07 <Dimitris> jima: we can say nothing, leave it to implementers or say will be supported in a later version
20:16:50 <Dimitris> topic: ISSUE-92
20:16:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- open
20:16:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
20:17:14 <aryman_> q+
20:17:24 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:18:02 <Dimitris> aryman: I got a note from iovka for a proposal related to this. She found the partition proposal well founded
20:19:12 <Dimitris> ericp: I hope to get a little of her time next week
20:20:50 <Dimitris> topic: ISSUE-99
20:20:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-99 -- special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) -- open
20:20:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/99
20:21:52 <Dimitris> pfps: special treatment of rdf:List and rdfs:Resource should be removed
20:22:05 <Dimitris> ... if we do something for rdf:List we should do it right
20:22:15 <hknublau> q+
20:22:32 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
20:23:10 <Dimitris> hknublau: we just try to identify that it is an rdf:List
20:23:54 <Dimitris> ... for rdfs:Resource we can use sh:nodeKind
20:24:14 <Dimitris> q+
20:24:40 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
20:24:43 <Dimitris> ... we can add an issue for better support of rdf:Lists, I am not against to what Peter suggests
20:26:06 <aryman_> +1
20:26:16 <Dimitris> dimitris: prefer to remove the checks of rdf:List and rdfs:REsource to sh:nodeKind
20:30:53 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:30:53 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:30:53 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, simonstey, pfps, Dimitris, aryman, hknublau, kcoyle, TallTed, ericP, hsolbrig
20:31:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:31:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/25-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:31:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:31:02 <RRSAgent> I see no action items