18:58:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:58:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-shapes-irc
18:58:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:58:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:58:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:58:04 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:58:05 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:58:05 <trackbot> Date: 10 March 2016
18:58:08 <Arnaud> present+
18:58:21 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.03.10
18:58:37 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:58:57 <jamsden> jamsden has joined #shapes
18:59:10 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:59:36 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
19:00:07 <pfps> present+
19:00:07 <kcoyle> present+
19:00:12 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
19:00:33 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
19:01:02 <Labra> present+ labra
19:01:11 <Labra> ** I am attending another meeting...
19:01:16 <Arnaud> present+ jamsden
19:01:33 <Labra> ** I can see the IRC, but no audio
19:01:51 <hknublau> present+
19:01:59 <Arnaud> regrets: simonstey
<kcoyle> topic: Admin
19:03:49 <TallTed> present+
19:04:21 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 3 March 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-shapes-minutes.html
19:04:24 <pfps> minutes look fine to me
19:04:28 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
19:04:35 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 3 March 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-shapes-minutes.html
<kcoyle> topic: Disposal of Raised Issues
19:05:08 <kcoyle> raised issues: 124-133
19:05:17 <kcoyle> 124-133
19:05:47 <Dimitris> present+
19:06:01 <jamsden> q+
19:06:08 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-124 sh:group, ISSUE-125 sh:NodeConstraint missing, ISSUE-126 sh:TemplateConstraint undefined, ISSUE-127 sh:TemplateScope undefined, ISSUE-128 rdfs:range, ISSUE-129 existential constraints, ISSUE-130 rdf dataset assumption, ISSUE-131 sh:hasShape ill defined, ISSUE-132 sh:predicate in constraints, ISSUE-133 syntax
19:06:11 <Arnaud> ack jamsden
19:06:45 <kcoyle> jamsden: given issue 95 and the scope of these - what are we evaluating these against, vis a vis issue 95
19:07:02 <kcoyle> Arnaud: yes, there is definitely some overlap
19:07:24 <kcoyle> ericP: perhaps Peter could winnow down the list?
19:07:49 <kcoyle> ... e.g. proposal for metadata simplification; and 133 syntax simplification
19:08:07 <kcoyle> pfps: 125-128 may be redundant with 95
19:08:16 <kcoyle> ericP: 133?
19:08:45 <kcoyle> pfps: many are issues in the current SHACL spec document, things that aren't well defined
19:09:00 <kcoyle> ... this could just be a fix to the document, or something can be added
19:09:17 <kcoyle> ... so in that sense they are not redundant because they are about the document
19:09:41 <kcoyle> ericP: there are proposals in many of them
19:10:42 <kcoyle> pfps: 128 has a proposal, those before that do not;
19:11:39 <kcoyle> Arnaud: there are broad issues like 95 and 133 that will impact the others; but having a useful of gaps in the spec is useful
19:11:47 <jamsden> q+
19:11:47 <TallTed> q+
19:12:16 <Arnaud> ack jamsden
19:12:16 <kcoyle> ... we will try to address big issues forst then we can look back at the gaps tos ee if they still exist
19:12:50 <kcoyle> jamsden: my question was related to how we go about evaluating the issues; some that are closed may need to be reopened
19:12:52 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
19:13:45 <kcoyle> TallTed: for the moment, these are issues; we will evaluate them in another step; some issues may be reopened
19:15:03 <kcoyle> Arnaud: all proposals are proposals; anyone can bring up anything for discussion
19:15:47 <TallTed> +1 open the set
19:16:22 <Dimitris> +1 to open all as well
19:16:40 <pfps> +1
19:16:45 <kcoyle> +1
19:16:52 <jamsden> +1
19:16:52 <hknublau> +1
19:16:53 <Labra> +1
19:17:00 <ericP> +q
19:17:03 <ericP> +1
19:17:07 <ericP> q-
19:17:29 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-124 sh:group, ISSUE-125 sh:NodeConstraint missing, ISSUE-126 sh:TemplateConstraint undefined, ISSUE-127 sh:TemplateScope undefined, ISSUE-128 rdfs:range, ISSUE-129 existential constraints, ISSUE-130 rdf dataset assumption, ISSUE-131 sh:hasShape ill defined, ISSUE-132 sh:predicate in constraints, ISSUE-133 syntax
19:17:59 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-99
19:17:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-99 -- special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) -- open
19:17:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/99
19:18:58 <kcoyle> Arnaud: ended last time with a proposal to rename; kcoyle objected
19:19:17 <pfps> I took a look at the current draft, and it appears that things are good wrt rdfs:Resource and rdf:List
19:19:32 <kcoyle> ... option: forget about the renaming... can we close 99? or do we want to discuss the names of the terms
19:20:02 <kcoyle> ... proposal to rename can be done at any time
19:20:32 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-99, based on the related resolutions from 3 March 2016
19:20:38 <kcoyle> +1
19:20:44 <ericP> +0
19:20:47 <hknublau> +1
19:20:49 <pfps> +1
19:20:50 <Dimitris> +1
19:21:05 <TallTed> +1
19:21:09 <jamsden> +1
19:21:39 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-99, based on the related resolutions from 3 March 2016
19:21:56 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-80
19:21:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-80 -- Constraint to limit IRIs against scheme/namespace, possibly with dereferencing -- open
19:21:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/80
19:23:14 <pfps> q+
19:23:20 <kcoyle> ericP: email gives view of ShEx model on stemming; thinks feature is useful
19:24:08 <pfps> I was also going to say that this is redundant
19:24:09 <pfps> q-
19:24:10 <kcoyle> ... easier than "is URI ..." - is redundant with SCHACL, but still useful
19:25:28 <kcoyle> ...ShEx = any URL, has stem, or stem "-stem" -- not... sometimes have to look at type; bnodes
19:25:35 <pfps> stem "X" = nodeKind IRI & pattern "X*", right?
19:26:18 <kcoyle> Arnaud: we know it's redundant; if we feel it is useful we can add it to the spec. Eric's email shows what it could be
19:26:42 <pfps> do we have a definition of all these cases?
19:26:44 <kcoyle> ericP: stem -stem and stem- url may not be redundant because of use of not
19:26:51 <kcoyle> q+
19:26:57 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:27:27 <TallTed> q+
19:27:35 <Dimitris> I would rename it to sh:ns or sh:namespace
19:27:35 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
19:27:40 <kcoyle> kcoyle - very common
19:27:59 <kcoyle> TallTed: what is the way to do this now? vs. what could be new
19:28:55 <pfps> pointer to the email?
19:29:08 <kcoyle> Arnaud: could someone create examples of both for comparison?
19:30:35 <kcoyle> ericP: the question is stem - stem - can you do that?
19:30:43 <kcoyle> pfps: write that down somewhere
19:30:50 <TallTed> "this but not that" no?
19:31:15 <kcoyle> Arnaud: eric please follow up to email, show what can be done in SHACL and highlight the -stem feature
19:32:36 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-68
19:32:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-68 -- pre-binding not defined in SHACL spec -- open
19:32:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/68
19:33:19 <pfps> stem - stem2 would be pattern "stem*" & ! pattern "stem2*"
19:33:49 <kcoyle> Arnaud: history; Holger added to spec, followed by email thread discussion; possibly problem not solved; can we converge here today?
19:34:36 <kcoyle> hknublau: talking with Andy to understand how this might be formally described; not described so yet
19:34:47 <kcoyle> ... question: how much detial is needed?
19:35:08 <kcoyle> ... may need special handling for "minus"
19:35:34 <kcoyle> ... very complicated so takes a lot of time
19:35:59 <kcoyle> pfps: section added to spec inadequate
19:36:29 <kcoyle> ... spec depends on hasShape, and doesn't work; not even clear what it is supposed to be doing
19:36:44 <kcoyle> hknublau: need to find someone inthe working group to work on this
19:36:55 <kcoyle> pfps: can't work on it until
19:37:05 <kcoyle> ... it's clear what is supposed to be doing
19:37:24 <kcoyle> hknublau: it is variable substitution
19:37:48 <kcoyle> pfps: what implementations exist for sh:hasShape
19:37:59 <Dimitris> q+
19:38:06 <kcoyle> Arnaud: there are two issues: pre-binding and sh:hasShape
19:38:37 <kcoyle> pfps: prebinding is required ... sh:hasShape goes outsid eof sparql and back in; when it goes back in the enviornment needs to be applied
19:39:20 <kcoyle> ... pre-binding is required for return' may be the only place where this happens, which is why pre-binding relates to sh:hasShape
19:39:57 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:40:41 <kcoyle> Dimitris: for the rest, what is described is adequate... no problems with pre-binding
19:41:45 <kcoyle> section 6.2.2.1 of editor's draft
19:42:00 <Arnaud> 6.2.1
19:43:19 <kcoyle> pfps: breaks in subqueries, and breaks in minus, and skolemization is problematic
19:43:42 <kcoyle> hknublau: there is an algorithym for skolemization, but may need more to handle minus
19:44:10 <kcoyle> pfps: sparql code runs different on skolemized and non-skolemized graphs
19:44:44 <kcoyle> ... conversion to string is a problem
19:44:55 <kcoyle> hknublau: make it an appendix
19:45:06 <kcoyle> pfps: no, this is a core part of the language
19:46:16 <kcoyle> ericP: spec didn't deal with it because there weren't blank node bindings in sparql (?)
19:46:56 <Dimitris> q+
19:47:10 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:47:13 <kcoyle> hknublau: will continue in email
19:47:35 <kcoyle> Dimitris: could try to do it, in the future
19:48:11 <kcoyle> TOPIC: Syntax and metamodel complexity
19:48:54 <kcoyle> Arnaud: some of this done under issue-95; Peter has now come up with an alternative syntax; where do we stand?
19:50:44 <ericP> s/spec didn't deal with it because there weren't blank node bindings in sparql/SPARQL 1.1 spec didn't deal with bnodes because there weren't told blank node bindings in sparql/
19:50:52 <kcoyle> pfps: seems there is still disagreement with the metamodel; can we cut down the syntactic categories, and cut down the model
19:51:04 <kcoyle> ... and end up with a language that is easier for users
19:51:13 <kcoyle> ... 1) is the current language too complicated?
19:51:25 <kcoyle> ...2) canw e cut it down? we can cut down the syntax
19:51:55 <kcoyle> ...3) can we implement this? there are some problems; this requires a change to the implementation strategy
19:52:13 <kcoyle> ... could require a different extention to SPARQL
19:52:15 <kcoyle> ....
19:52:37 <kcoyle> ... don'r really need to put 'thas in
19:52:41 <kcoyle> to put paths in
19:52:42 <ericP> q+ to ask for vocab
19:52:47 <jamsden> can we quantify the complexity of the syntax?
19:54:13 <hknublau> q+
19:54:19 <kcoyle> pfps: if we had had a completed design this wouldn't be a good idea; but we are not nearly done; model is not consistent today
19:55:01 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:55:01 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask for vocab
19:55:25 <kcoyle> ericP: want more from Peter re: actual design
19:56:49 <hknublau> For repeated values, just use sh:and
19:56:53 <kcoyle> pfps: highlights: 1) currently you can't do sh:person; sh:partient - this is illegal because you cannot repeate constructs; what makes them difficult is pattern and qualified cardinality
19:57:09 <kcoyle> ... that will be hard to explain to user
19:57:40 <kcoyle> ... three different kinds of constraints, and 15 or 20 different pieces of which goes where - have to look up in a table
19:58:04 <ericP> q+ to ask (for probably the eleventeenth clarification) about OWL parsing from RDF graphs
19:58:10 <kcoyle> ... but itisn't clear why these are separate; so why not allow them all?
19:58:38 <kcoyle> ... no longer have three kinds of constraints, and merge them into shapes so no diff. between shapes and constraints
19:59:02 <kcoyle> ... more technical: the way that you declare validation reports depends on where you are (but currently doesnt)
19:59:43 <kcoyle> .... validation for sh:in not s p o -- but in can be without a p
20:00:15 <ericP> ➕①  to pfps's simplications -- i think they'll be expected
20:00:32 <kcoyle> ...why not use two sh:class one after the other? this drives a major change to the design, which is why I defined "filler"
20:01:18 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
20:02:29 <kcoyle> hknublau: some things just don't work; spec hasn't been updated because metamodel work was ongoing
20:02:53 <kcoyle> ... proposal #3 is clearer than the old version of the spec
20:03:34 <kcoyle> ... the simplification, however, doesn't work; you can use 'and' or repeat properties
20:04:17 <kcoyle> ... some things appear to be disadvantages, such as using position in lists
20:04:58 <kcoyle> pfps: what are the other issues?
20:05:55 <kcoyle> hknublau: this could take two months; path expressions - might be achieved in another way
20:06:51 <kcoyle> ... syntax of nested shapes is complicated, esp. and, or. Shortcut could be applied, but with a different solution. These are incremental.
20:06:55 <Arnaud> ack ericP
20:06:55 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask (for probably the eleventeenth clarification) about OWL parsing from RDF graphs
20:07:58 <kcoyle> ericP: asking Peter - want to be able to stack constraints; how did OWL deal with this?
20:08:29 <kcoyle> pfps: I prefer the way that OWL does it, but may not work in this case. Implicit AND has been gone for a long time
20:08:49 <kcoyle> .... means that you end up repeating the path
20:09:24 <kcoyle> ericP: what if triple constraint had a value expression, and all was put into the value expression with the ands and ors
20:10:26 <kcoyle> pfps: that is basically the OWL solution.... for an explicity AND is OWLish; so filler can take a structure a node with two things hanging off of it
20:11:14 <kcoyle> Arnaud: question is - Peter says the model isn't regular; Holger says this is going to take months to resolve
20:11:38 <ericP> <S> sh:constraint [ a sh:TripleConstraint; sh:predicate <foo>; sh:expr [ a sh:And; sh:left [...], sh:right [...] ] .
20:11:43 <ericP> @pfps, like that?
20:11:52 <kcoyle> q+
20:12:52 <kcoyle> Arnaud: we need to gather examples so that we can compare the two
20:13:49 <kcoyle> ... we do have the test suite that we should use for this
20:14:01 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
20:16:09 <kcoyle> kcoyle: need uninvolved folks' opinions; dcmi will have a full set of examples soon
20:16:28 <jamsden> q+
20:18:01 <Arnaud> ack jamsden
20:18:59 <ericP> -> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/dcmi DCMI tests
20:19:21 <kcoyle> jamsden: how OSLC will migrate to shacl - already has rich use cases of shapes; volunteers to re-express them as shacl; but doesn't understand enough
20:20:29 <kcoyle> ... not clear how stale the current spec is; quite a bit of effort to contrast all of the different proposals
20:21:11 <kcoyle> Arnaud: Encourage you to try; and provide examples, and ask for help where the questions are
20:22:02 <hknublau> q+
20:22:15 <pfps> Sure
20:22:22 <kcoyle> jamsden: to Peter and Holger: please do final review of proposals. then Jim will try to convert OSLC shapes to those
20:22:31 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
20:23:20 <kcoyle> hknublau: proposal 3 & 4 is apples and oranges; proposal 3 is about the metamodel; syntax changes aren't in there
20:24:53 <kcoyle> hknublau: what about the other approach; looking at simplifying constraints and adding paths; otherwise we are blocked and nothing else gets done
20:25:34 <kcoyle> ... also, we can look at the issues brought up by Peter then there is an incremental path
20:26:05 <kcoyle> Arnaud: This doesn't need to stop the discussion on issue 95; should progress
20:26:42 <kcoyle> hknublau: Peter's approach will end up being like proposal #3
20:27:49 <pfps> q+
20:27:56 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:28:07 <kcoyle> hknublau: work is blocked
20:28:20 <kcoyle> pfps: no, work goes on in other areas
20:29:28 <kcoyle> ... There are many technical issues still that need work, and have been on our list for a while
20:30:40 <pfps> If there had been something that was close to being done, I would not have proposed a change
20:32:41 <Dimitris> Dimitris has left #shapes
22:06:41 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
22:06:41 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
22:06:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, pfps, kcoyle, labra, jamsden, hknublau, TallTed, Dimitris
22:06:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:06:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
22:06:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
22:06:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items