IRC log of shapes on 2016-03-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:58:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:58:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:58:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:58:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
17:58:13 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:58:13 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:58:14 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:58:14 [trackbot]
Date: 24 March 2016
17:58:27 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
17:58:43 [pfps]
18:00:36 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:01:42 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
18:02:31 [Arnaud]
18:02:49 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
18:03:31 [hknublau]
18:04:19 [kcoyle]
kcoyle has joined #shapes
18:04:38 [Arnaud]
regrets: labra, ericP, hsolbrig
18:04:54 [Arnaud]
18:05:38 [jamsden]
jamsden has joined #shapes
18:06:34 [TallTed]
18:06:41 [TallTed]
scribenick: TallTed
18:07:44 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 17 March 2016 Telecon:
18:08:04 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 17 March 2016 Telecon:
18:09:20 [TallTed]
18:09:23 [pfps]
18:09:46 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:10:36 [TallTed]
pfps: I don't think face- nor meeting-time is the bottleneck at the moment
18:11:08 [TallTed]
... gaps in the design/spec need to be filled
18:12:11 [hknublau]
18:12:18 [TallTed]
... which needs external inputs and/or increased attention from some quarters
18:12:23 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:15:31 [TallTed]
hknublau: what are the dramatic holes at the moment?
18:16:03 [TallTed]
pfps: prebinding and hasShapes
18:17:09 [TallTed]
Arnaud: there's been recent email traffic on prebinding
18:17:43 [TallTed]
hknublau: hasShape has not been updated because we're still working on recursion, which resolution has significant impact there
18:19:42 [simonstey]
simonstey has joined #shapes
18:20:57 [TallTed]
18:21:34 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
18:25:11 [TallTed]
present+ simonstey
18:25:47 [TallTed]
[ back-and-forth about F2F impact/utility ]
18:27:41 [TallTed]
hknublau: what is current timeline?
18:28:29 [TallTed]
Arnaud: we are chartered until June 2017, so there should be plenty of time, even though we have not kept up with original forecast schedule
18:30:50 [pfps]
18:30:54 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:32:19 [simonstey]
18:32:41 [Arnaud]
ack simonstey
18:33:24 [TallTed]
pfps: another implementation, especially one that includes the extension mechanism, would help a lot in boosting confidence
18:34:32 [pfps]
18:35:23 [pfps]
18:35:24 [TallTed]
simonstey: I'm doing a fair amount of work with hknublau's draft API. do we need to re-implement that to be counted as multiple implmentations?
18:35:51 [Dimitris]
I am planning to implement the spec
18:37:12 [TallTed]
TallTed: I do expect that OpenLink will implement SHACL including extension mechanism. timing is indeterminate, but we do try to do such within CR->PR window.
18:37:58 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-138 Property constraints as lists, ISSUE-139 Universal applicability, ISSUE-140 Individual validation, ISSUE-141 Mixed ranges
18:38:10 [hknublau]
18:38:14 [TallTed]
18:38:16 [Dimitris]
18:38:16 [kcoyle]
18:38:37 [simonstey]
18:38:37 [pfps]
I think that it would be very much better if OpenLink did an implementation before CR. This gives the WG much needed confidence that the design is workable.
18:38:39 [pfps]
18:38:56 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-138 Property constraints as lists, ISSUE-139 Universal applicability, ISSUE-140 Individual validation, ISSUE-141 Mixed ranges
18:39:05 [pfps]
It would also be very helpful if OpenLink can contribute to the design of hasShape and pre-binding.
18:40:05 [Arnaud]
topic: ISSUE-128: rdfs:range
18:40:09 [TallTed]
18:40:09 [trackbot]
ISSUE-128 -- sh:defaultValueType is rdfs:range -- open
18:40:09 [trackbot]
18:40:15 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-128, without action.
18:40:46 [TallTed]
hknublau's email --
18:42:26 [TallTed]
pfps: as far as I can tell, defaultRange is trying to mirror part of RDFS, so we don't have to put class links on some shapes, in order to support a particular version of the metamodel
18:42:36 [simonstey]
18:42:48 [Arnaud]
ack simonstey
18:43:13 [TallTed]
18:45:01 [pfps]
18:45:11 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:46:25 [TallTed]
pfps: this seems to be a special purpose crutch to enable metamodel validation, and of no use elsewhere
18:47:16 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-128, without action.
18:47:20 [pfps]
18:47:25 [hknublau]
18:47:36 [simonstey]
18:47:38 [kcoyle]
18:47:40 [Dimitris]
18:47:45 [jamsden]
18:47:49 [TallTed]
18:47:59 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-128, dropping sh:defaultValueType
18:48:07 [hknublau]
18:48:10 [TallTed]
18:48:14 [pfps]
18:48:19 [kcoyle]
18:48:20 [Dimitris]
18:48:22 [simonstey]
18:48:26 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
18:49:42 [kcoyle]
18:50:03 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:50:04 [simonstey]
18:50:46 [TallTed]
kcoyle: I believe we've decided definitively that SHACL includes no inferencing. that makes me wonder how using rdfs:range could help us here.
18:51:23 [TallTed]
hknublau: this is about pre-validation inferencing on the shapes graph
18:53:19 [Arnaud]
ack simonstey
18:53:25 [TallTed]
hknublau: the difference is that rdfs:range effectively always adds a type triple, while sh:defaultValueType only applies if there is no other type triple
18:53:43 [simonstey]
sh:property [ a sh:PropertyConstraint; sh:predicate ex:property; sh:minCount 1 ] vs. sh:property [sh:predicate ex:property; sh:minCount 1 ]
18:54:28 [Dimitris]
18:55:27 [TallTed]
simonstey: this seems to be just a bit of shorthand sugar, allowing some explicit statements to be left out
18:55:59 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
18:56:41 [TallTed]
Dimitris: I think we need to finalize the metamodel before we'll know whether this is useful or not
18:56:46 [TallTed]
18:57:34 [TallTed]
Arnaud: do we break anything if we drop sh:defaultValueType?
18:57:37 [TallTed]
hknublau: no
18:57:37 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
18:58:37 [TallTed]
TallTed: what about marking it Feature At Risk?
18:58:39 [pfps]
18:58:44 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:01:29 [TallTed]
after this discussion, I revise my votes above to +1, -1
19:01:43 [TallTed]
s/after this/TallTed: after this/
19:02:03 [kcoyle]
19:02:26 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
19:03:10 [TallTed]
kcoyle: I wonder if we're not talking so much about the standard, as implementation variance
19:04:20 [TallTed]
Arnaud: anyone else adjusting votes?
19:04:26 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-128, without action.
19:05:49 [TallTed]
topic: Syntax and metamodel Complexity and Possible simplifications
19:06:17 [hknublau]
19:06:24 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:06:38 [TallTed]
19:08:14 [hknublau]
19:09:21 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:09:52 [pfps]
19:10:38 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:11:27 [Dimitris]
19:12:17 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
19:13:19 [TallTed]
Dimitris: we have two considerations -- metamodel simplification, and syntax simplification. making one simpler tends to make the other more complex. do we simplify life for "engine user" or for "engine writer"?
19:13:38 [pfps]
19:14:27 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:16:31 [TallTed]
pfps: the current design with mixed up PropertyConstraints and property paths is broken. there is some patch in consideration, but it's not clear whether that resolves the whole break.
19:19:23 [TallTed]
topic: ISSUE-41: property paths
19:19:23 [TallTed]
Arnaud: in the course of this, Property Paths were raised again, and appear to be more broadly acceptable and implementable
19:19:28 [Dimitris]
19:19:46 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
19:20:06 [simonstey]
19:20:26 [pfps]
I don't see that closing this the other way is a possibility today.
19:20:33 [Arnaud]
ack simonstey
19:20:41 [TallTed]
Dimitris: ShEx people are likely to have objections here, so if we reopen, shouldn't reclose without them
19:21:26 [hknublau]
19:21:32 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:22:21 [simonstey]
if the extension mechanism will be dropped, we need those paths
19:22:40 [TallTed]
hknublau: I wonder whether we now have solutions to a problem that doesn't really exist or isn't that important
19:23:00 [TallTed]
... would probably want this to be in extension mechanism, not core
19:23:20 [hknublau]
Yes, we could postpone it.
19:24:05 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Reopen ISSUE-41, based on Peter's email
19:24:24 [simonstey]
19:24:34 [pfps]
+0.5 as I find them very useful in my implementation
19:24:41 [TallTed]
19:25:04 [kcoyle]
19:25:06 [hknublau]
19:25:17 [Dimitris]
19:25:44 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Reopen ISSUE-41, based on Peter's email
19:26:12 [TallTed]
topic: ISSUE-130: rdf dataset assumption
19:26:16 [TallTed]
19:26:16 [trackbot]
ISSUE-130 -- SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset -- open
19:26:16 [trackbot]
19:26:28 [Dimitris]
19:26:37 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
19:27:17 [pfps]
q+ to say that the current draft does not depend on datasets
19:27:36 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:27:36 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to say that the current draft does not depend on datasets
19:29:30 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-130, as is - the latest draft doesn't require/assume a dataset
19:29:41 [pfps]
19:29:45 [TallTed]
19:29:47 [Dimitris]
19:29:49 [kcoyle]
19:29:54 [jamsden]
19:29:55 [simonstey]
19:29:59 [hknublau]
19:30:11 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-130, as is - the latest draft doesn't require/assume a dataset
19:30:53 [TallTed]
19:30:58 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:30:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:30:58 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been pfps, hknublau, Arnaud, TallTed, simonstey
19:31:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:31:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
19:31:07 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:31:07 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
19:31:10 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has left #shapes