17:54:56 RRSAgent has joined #shapes 17:54:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/05-shapes-irc 17:54:58 RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes 17:54:58 Zakim has joined #shapes 17:55:00 Zakim, this will be SHAPES 17:55:00 ok, trackbot 17:55:01 Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference 17:55:01 Date: 05 May 2016 17:58:01 hknublau has joined #shapes 17:58:19 present+ 17:58:22 chair: Arnaud 17:58:39 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.05.05 17:59:35 kcoyle has joined #shapes 18:05:00 regrets: labra, ericP 18:06:19 marqh has joined #shapes 18:08:10 Dimitris has joined #shapes 18:08:15 mib_e9s4ey has joined #shapes 18:08:48 jamsden has joined #shapes 18:09:16 present+ 18:09:40 present+ 18:09:56 scribenick: dimitris 18:12:01 pfps has joined #shapes 18:12:45 present+ topic: Admin 18:12:48 PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 28 April 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/04/28-shapes-minutes.html 18:12:49 present+ 18:12:50 arnaud: let's start, propose to approve minutes from last week 18:12:51 present+ 18:13:07 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 28 April 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/04/28-shapes-minutes.html 18:13:07 present+ topic: Disposal of Raised Issues 18:14:12 PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-158 18:14:35 ISSUE-158 18:14:35 ISSUE-158 -- ill-typed literals do not always trigger a validation result -- raised 18:14:35 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/158 18:14:35 issue-158 18:14:35 issue-158 -- ill-typed literals do not always trigger a validation result -- raised 18:14:35 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/158 18:15:07 +1 18:15:10 +1 18:15:13 fine by me to open 158 18:15:15 +1 18:15:16 +1 18:15:28 +1 18:15:46 RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-158 18:16:04 topic: ISSUE-123 18:16:04 issue-123 -- Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? -- open 18:16:04 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/123 18:16:18 jamsden has joined #shapes 18:16:33 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-123, dropping sh:directType 18:16:43 arnaud: we talked about this, it seems there is consensus to drop sh:directType 18:16:43 +1 18:16:46 +1 18:16:46 +1 18:16:48 +1 18:16:54 +1 18:17:11 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-123, dropping sh:directType 18:17:23 topic: ISSUE-135 18:17:23 issue-135 -- Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? -- open 18:17:23 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/135 18:17:56 there have been several emails 18:18:08 q+ 18:18:09 arnaud: we talked about issue 135, people liked the idea for simplification and Holger sent an email with a proposal 18:18:14 ack hknublau 18:19:13 hknublau: i noticed I made a mistake with the original proposal, I was propagating property constraints, the solution is simpler without changes but I am not ready for a complete proposal 18:19:14 q+ 18:19:26 ack pfps 18:20:05 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-135:_and.2For_syntactic_sugar 18:20:08 pfps: there is an nice proposal from Eric, if extended properly it could be a good candidate 18:21:04 arnaud: ericP is not here and cannot answer questions, maybe best is to give WG another week topic: Public comment 18:23:27 second set of comments from 18:23:31 Baker https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0004.html 18:24:19 arnaud: there were some comments on the editors draft from Thomas Baker and we need to decide how to responde to these comments 18:25:41 .. his seems quite knowledgable and his comments are very interesting 18:26:12 ... some comments validate what we hear from Peter 18:26:29 q+ 18:26:50 ack pfps 18:27:46 pfps: he is confused about terminology, the interaction between shacl and rdfs and validation 18:27:46 q+ 18:28:26 ... what I do not understand in his comments is the OWA in the shapes graph 18:29:37 q+ 18:29:55 ack hknublau 18:29:56 ... OWA and CWA have to do with logics but we need to make it clear so people not get confused 18:30:56 hknublau: we closed many of these points no need to reopen them again but there is editorial work to be done 18:31:23 ... I am also open to find suitable terms, I am open to renaming 18:31:26 I don't think that there is anything in Tom's comments that are not editorial. He is not asking for any changes in SHACL, or at least that is my interpretation of his comments. 18:31:41 q+ 18:32:33 ack TallTed 18:32:34 arnaud: he is trying to get on board with what we are thiunking but it not very clear 18:33:36 tallted: 1) an editor's draft is not supposed to be consumed from people outside the group, they can look at the next public draft 18:34:49 ... 2) reg OWA / CWA they do not apply in what we are doing 18:35:27 ack pfps 18:35:29 arnaud: what we could do is go through thoma's list 18:36:18 pfps: I think people looking at editor's draft are more to be treasured than those looking at the public draft 18:36:52 q+ 18:37:18 ack jamsden 18:37:34 arnaud: we haven't published in several months and we are due on that 18:38:04 jamsden: let's treat his review like a review from a WG member 18:38:52 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016May/0000.html 18:39:17 q+ 18:39:28 ack pfps 18:39:32 arnaud: the first two points can set the expectations for the reader 18:40:09 q+ 18:40:43 pfps: constraint has many meanings, Karen also had problems with the term, we need a better introduction that doesn't include constraint 18:40:53 its not constraints on the graph, its constraints imposed by and application of or use of the graph for a purpose 18:41:15 ack jamsden 18:41:53 arnaud: we have two levels of constraints, on a high level of constraining an RDF node with a shape and lower level constraints 18:42:00 q+ 18:42:58 ack kcoyle 18:43:08 jamsden: the word constraint is ok but we do not constrain the graph 18:43:15 q+ 18:43:25 q+ 18:43:39 kcoyle: we are not constraining we are validating 18:44:05 ... we also have components which is confusing 18:44:18 q+ 18:44:50 arnaud: we have different use case and we can also constraint web forms 18:45:00 ack marqh 18:45:10 kcoyle: validation is most prominent 18:46:43 marqh: I want to highlight two words, one is "context and the other is "validate", the term validate is not easy to misinterpret 18:46:48 ack TallTed 18:47:17 tallted: like other w3c specs we are overloading terms 18:48:23 ... validation and constraint can mean the same or different things 18:48:35 ack pfps 18:48:38 ... we got to be very clear on the definitions 18:49:29 pfps: every word we use has a meaning associated with it, we should try and use words that are as close as possible to what we want to say 18:50:17 ... we either should be very careful when using the term constraint or avoid it. I agree with Karen, validate covers what we do 18:50:45 ... why not get away from constraints? 18:51:31 q+ 18:51:45 ack marqh 18:52:26 marqh: point 1 in Tom's email is define constraint upfront 18:53:13 ... we should also be consistent through out the spec 18:53:56 q+ 18:54:02 arnaud: let's go to point 2 "If a shape is described in RDF, say so early on" 18:54:12 ack pfps 18:55:16 pfps: I think there is confusion on the use of rdfs in the shapes graph 18:55:38 q+ 18:56:09 arnaud: is this rdf vs rdfs? 18:57:04 pfps: yes, shacl uses only the rdfs terms not the meaning 18:58:23 ack kcoyle 18:59:22 kcoyle: where does SHACL fit with W3c technology? 19:00:22 arnaud: the problem is with inferencing where we say we do not but sneak some in 19:00:43 but what is RDF? is it RDF graphs? is it the old intuitive meaning of RDF graphs? is the the newer formal meaning of RDF graphs? and then what about RDFS? 19:01:04 q+ 19:01:17 tallted: classes and subclasses did not originate from RDF, even in biology we have these terms 19:02:21 ... someone needs to suggest alternative terminology 19:02:49 ack marqh 19:03:45 marqh: reading section 1.3 can make people worry that something is wrong 19:04:57 ... are we trying to be too defensive? 19:06:03 ... can we say it in a slightly different way? 19:07:18 tallted: we always need to say there is no reasoning 19:07:38 ... you have to do all your reasoning before 19:08:15 three things: needs an application 19:08:54 marqh: I see a confusion on what is (a shapes graph) and what do I do with it 19:09:42 ... can individuals respond to specific comments? 19:10:23 arnaud: I am open, we can certainly to ask for clarifications 19:10:25 q+ 19:10:46 ack pfps 19:11:06 pfps: that is not going to work 19:11:52 ... otherwise we have N different people saying N different things 19:12:09 q+ 19:12:10 ... there is a response that I do not completely agree with 19:13:17 arnaud: I have a suggestion, it could be ok for people to ask questions but not to give answers 19:13:22 q+ 19:14:01 q- 19:14:27 pfps: email exchange can be very messy and we owe Tom a good response 19:15:01 tallted: we can have a WG delegate do it 19:15:36 ack marqh 19:17:54 q+ 19:17:59 ack hknublau 19:18:16 arnaud: point 5 suggests we move the extension mechanism to another document 19:18:56 hknublau: this is an opinion of one person 19:19:10 ... splitting this makes our job much harder 19:19:28 q+ 19:19:42 arnaud: the reason take this seriously is because it validates some comments we had in the WG 19:20:21 tallted: we should take this into consideration but it is only one comment 19:20:36 ack kcoyle 19:21:04 q+ 19:21:08 +1 to a primer if there are volunteers 19:21:12 kcoyle: is this an indication that a primer could be required as a document 19:21:59 arnaud: LDP does something similar 19:22:03 ack marqh 19:22:23 marqh: +1 for a primer document 19:22:55 q+ 19:23:15 ... people who do not want to implement shacl do not need the whole specification 19:23:53 ack kcoyle 19:24:18 arnaud: the information is not still stable enough to have a test suite even a primer 19:24:59 kcoyle: I can help with the examples 19:25:38 q+ 19:25:42 ack hknublau topic: SHACL Draft Publication 19:25:46 arnaud: we need to publish another public version of the draft 19:25:53 q+ 19:25:57 q+ 19:26:27 hknublau: I would like a resolution of datatype vs class before the next draft 19:26:39 ... this would be the final syntax changes 19:26:49 ... we also have a lot of editorial work 19:26:57 q- 19:27:19 ack pfps 19:27:50 pfps: it would be nice to have an attempt to response to Tom before a public working draft 19:31:15 arnaud: we do not have time to answer all his points one by one before publishing the draft 19:31:34 ... I will send a reply to him explaining this 19:32:46 @Dimitris, I'll delete sh:directType 19:33:03 trackbot, end meeting 19:33:03 Zakim, list attendees 19:33:03 As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, hknublau, Dimitris, kcoyle, pfps, TallTed, marqh, jamsden 19:33:11 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 19:33:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/05-shapes-minutes.html trackbot 19:33:12 RRSAgent, bye 19:33:12 I see no action items