17:59:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:59:45 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/12-shapes-irc
17:59:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:59:47 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:59:49 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
17:59:49 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:59:49 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
17:59:50 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:59:50 <trackbot> Date: 12 May 2016
18:01:07 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Shapes WG: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes Next agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.05.12
18:01:13 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Shapes WG: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes Next agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.05.12
18:01:21 <Arnaud> present+
18:01:47 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:01:50 <kcoyle> present+
18:01:56 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.05.12
18:02:52 <simonstey> present+
18:03:28 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:03:46 <Arnaud> scribe: kcoyle
18:04:33 <Arnaud> regrets: pfps, hsolbrig
18:04:45 <hknublau> present+
18:05:41 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:07:25 <kcoyle> Topic: ADMIN
18:07:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 5 May 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/05-shapes-minutes.html
18:08:01 <TallTed> present+
18:08:04 <kcoyle> yes
18:08:10 <Dimitris> present+
18:08:13 <Dimitris> yes
18:08:15 <TallTed> they look like minutes...
18:08:52 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 5 May 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/05-shapes-minutes.html
18:09:16 <kcoyle> Topic: Disposal of Raised Issues
18:09:23 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-160
18:10:38 <Dimitris> +1
18:10:42 <TallTed> +1
18:10:42 <kcoyle> +1
18:10:43 <hknublau> +1
18:10:48 <simonstey> +1
18:11:02 <Labra> +1
18:11:04 <ericP> +1
18:11:10 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-160
18:12:02 <kcoyle> TOPIC: Draft publication
18:12:51 <kcoyle> Arnaud: get an update from editors - lots of discussion of new technology seciton
18:13:05 <Arnaud> s/technology/terminology/
18:13:37 <kcoyle> hknublau: Currently in limbo; good idea to have terminology section; needs to be clear, though. Has been asking for alternative terms
18:14:17 <kcoyle> ... esp. around terms class, instance. Perhaps "shacl class" "shacl instance'
18:14:42 <kcoyle> Arnaud: still being actively worked on? or ready to go?
18:14:53 <simonstey> +q
18:15:22 <kcoyle> hknublau: Not consistent at this point. Will take more work because "instance' for example is used all over
18:15:26 <Dimitris> +q
18:15:35 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
18:15:35 <kcoyle> ... So far no other suggestions than adding SHACL
18:16:09 <kcoyle> simonstey: We might be vulnerable to comments if we publish it as is without fixing this, then that will bring criticism
18:16:33 <kcoyle> ... needs to be well-defined for next publication cycle, or left out altogether
18:17:05 <kcoyle> ... perhaps not include terminology section for next cycle; or only include those we are sure of
18:17:36 <TallTed> q+
18:17:41 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
18:18:30 <kcoyle> Dimitris: compromise: use linking instead of adding SHACL (makes document hard to read)
18:19:21 <kcoyle> Dimitris - you need to mute because we are getting echo
18:19:29 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
18:19:36 <jamsden> jamsden has joined #shapes
18:20:35 <kcoyle> TallTed: Working drafts are not carved in stone; having a disclaimer is ok; working draft is a heartbeat; and to get feedback from outside
18:21:51 <kcoyle> Arnaud: should be at least coherent for the WD - if terminology doesn't make sense, maybe we shouldn't include it
18:22:40 <kcoyle> hknublau: goal of terminology section makes it easier to rename things later; every usage would be linked to definition,
18:23:28 <kcoyle> ... Not possible to delete terminology seciton now - things are integrated into it
18:23:48 <kcoyle> Arnaud: Should try to have something that makes sense
18:24:02 <kcoyle> hknublau: Set a deadline? e.g. next week?
18:24:46 <kcoyle> Arnaud: Status quo is draft today; others need to make proposals on terminology section; otherwise will stay how it is.
18:26:20 <kcoyle> hknublau: could split the document and put in hyperlinks - perhaps in a few days
18:27:07 <kcoyle> Arnaud: either next week or the one after
18:27:52 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-141
18:27:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-141 -- How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges -- open
18:27:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/141
18:29:13 <kcoyle> hknublau: currently have dataType and datatypeIn; class, and classIn. Disjoint. OWL and others have only one property for these
18:29:45 <kcoyle> ... three proposals (in issue document); would be good to have this before publication
18:29:58 <kcoyle> ... if value of type is one of known
18:30:21 <kcoyle> ... types, would be a datatype property; else would be a class
18:30:28 <Dimitris> q+
18:30:33 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
18:31:08 <kcoyle> Dimitris: if simplify, makes ... unknown datatypes
18:31:36 <kcoyle> hknublau: alternative would be to check for user-defined datatypes; not not used often so not needed for core
18:32:14 <kcoyle> ... needs to be easy to use for schema.org where the 'or' is used a lot
18:32:37 <kcoyle> Arnaud: there's a separate issue for OR and for sh:shape; what needs to be done?
18:32:49 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-141:_Mixed_ranges
18:33:48 <kcoyle> hknublau: proposal 3 has three options; peter and holger are ok with this
18:35:19 <kcoyle> simonstey: voted on a - b and c were added later
18:36:23 <kcoyle> hknublau: separate of sh:class and sh:datatype makes it easy to see what kind of datatype one has; but if you have to look at shapes or data graph, then it's harder
18:36:32 <ericP> q+
18:36:56 <kcoyle> ... don't need to cover user-defined data types because rare
18:36:57 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:37:01 <Dimitris> q+
18:37:34 <kcoyle> ericP: sparql doesn't support comparisons of custom data types, but you can do graph patterns on them. This is used.
18:38:04 <kcoyle> ... if you mix class and datatype in the same property, and you are validating, you can see what it has;
18:38:34 <kcoyle> ... but if you are generating web forms, how do you prompt for the data if it's either/or?
18:38:55 <kcoyle> hknublau: form builder would look for data type
18:39:50 <kcoyle> ericP: if it's a known sparql datatype, then you can do this; but if there's a custom type,you couldn't prompt the user for the correct type
18:40:13 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
18:40:13 <kcoyle> hknublau: that's ok if people want them in the core. that would be 3a
18:40:49 <kcoyle> Dimitris: there's no way for shacl to know to ask for either a datatype or a class
18:41:07 <kcoyle> hknublau: in 3a you would have to declare it with a types triple
18:42:18 <kcoyle> Arnaud: seems to be a preference for 3a
18:42:54 <kcoyle> jamsden; no opinion on 3b 3c; 3a seems fine
18:43:25 <kcoyle> TallTed: it must be a known datatype or an rdf:type statement that makes it known
18:43:34 <Dimitris> I would prefer  0 (do nothing) or if we selected one of 3*, 3c looks better than the other two
18:43:58 <kcoyle> hknublau: known datatypes are the XML ones; otherwise its under the control of the shapes graph
18:44:13 <kcoyle> TallTed: shapes graph must be a complete defined/shaped ontology
18:45:12 <kcoyle> Arnaud: what about doing nothing?
18:45:30 <kcoyle> q+
18:45:36 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:46:50 <kcoyle> kcoyle: put off until after WD?
18:47:02 <kcoyle> Arnaud: obvious preference for 3a; will be on agenda for next week
18:47:14 <kcoyle> ... others can still be considered
18:48:13 <kcoyle> TallTed: issue page is out of date; needs to be updated, esp. examples
18:49:47 <kcoyle> ... other option: close this issue and open new one that is up to date
18:52:04 <kcoyle> ... decision; modify and put note at the top that it has changed. Holger will do.
18:52:11 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-78
18:52:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- Should SHACL support marking classes as abstract -- open
18:52:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/78
18:53:39 <kcoyle> jamsden: I didn't fully understand Holger's issues; I've said my piece; up to Holger if it can be implemented
18:54:08 <kcoyle> hknublau: I proposed th eoriginal feature; I favor the use case, but I don't see a solution that works because of weak link between classes and shapes
18:54:14 <kcoyle> jamsden: link is weak?
18:54:45 <kcoyle> hknublau: if you narrow to sh:scopeClass; but you can link instances to other scopes, and should apply to those; so it becomes too narrow
18:55:04 <kcoyle> jamsden: ok, see that there are other examples where it doesn't work as easily
18:55:46 <kcoyle> ... not ok with things that impact rdf and rdfschema
18:55:55 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-78, dropping sh:abstract
18:55:58 <jamsden> +1
18:55:59 <Dimitris> +1
18:56:00 <kcoyle> +1
18:56:01 <TallTed> +1
18:56:11 <Labra> +1
18:56:13 <simonstey> +1
18:56:14 <hknublau> +1 (sadly)
18:56:41 <ericP> +1 (ambivalently)
18:57:05 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-78, dropping sh:abstract
18:57:15 <ericP> +ε ?
18:57:44 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-135
18:57:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-135 -- Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? -- open
18:57:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/135
18:57:52 <ericP> issue-135
18:57:52 <trackbot> issue-135 -- Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? -- open
18:57:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/135
18:57:55 <Arnaud> chair: ericP
18:58:13 <ericP> -> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-135:_and.2For_syntactic_sugar proposals
18:59:29 <kcoyle> hknublau: introduction -> simplify syntax so do not have to point to a shape inside an or; seems not worth it
18:59:54 <kcoyle> ... first, need to generalize sh:or sh:not so they can also be used as property constraints (not justn ode constraints)
19:00:03 <kcoyle> ... so, that's the proposal: extend
19:01:29 <kcoyle> hknublau: e.g. address is either a string or an instance (mixed range)
19:02:15 <kcoyle> ... this means you do not have to repeat the predicate
19:02:37 <kcoyle> ... end up with too many options to express the same thing - leads to confusion and difficulty
19:03:26 <kcoyle> ... proposal is to extend context of sh:or to also be allowed in property and inverse property constraints
19:03:46 <simonstey> +q
19:04:12 <kcoyle> simonstey: this is for or, not, and (clarifying)
19:04:44 <ericP> q+
19:04:48 <ericP> ack simonstey
19:04:50 <ericP> ack ericP
19:05:24 <kcoyle> ericP: shex does this with an expression at the far end of a triple constraint where you can have an expression of arbitrary complexity
19:06:13 <kcoyle> hknublau: that's a very different syntax; too different from what we currently have
19:06:15 <kcoyle> q+
19:07:01 <kcoyle> q-
19:08:52 <hknublau> ex:MyShape a sh:Shape ; sh:property [ sh:predicate schema:address ; sh:or ( [ sh:constraint [ sh:datatype xsd:string ] ] [ sh:constraint [ sh:class schema:Address ]] ) ] .
19:09:59 <Dimitris> q+
19:10:11 <ericP> ex:MyShape a sh:Shape ;
19:10:17 <ericP>   sh:property [
19:10:22 <ericP>     sh:predicate schema:address ;
19:10:27 <ericP>     sh:or (
19:10:31 <ericP>       [ sh:constraint [sh:datatype xsd:string ] ]
19:10:35 <ericP>       [ sh:constraint [ sh:class schema:Address ] ]
19:10:39 <ericP>     )
19:10:43 <ericP>   ] .
19:10:52 <ericP> --done--
19:11:23 <kcoyle> Dimitris: does his affect proposal relating to sh:constraint?
19:11:30 <kcoyle> hknublau: No, no affect
19:13:07 <ericP> hknublau: this proposal leaves the door open to further simplifications
19:13:10 <kcoyle> ericP: can vote w/o Peter because leaves open possibility of more revision.
19:13:13 <simonstey> +q
19:13:25 <kcoyle> hknublau: issue can be left open
19:13:26 <ericP> ack Dimitris
19:13:35 <ericP> ack simonstey
19:13:58 <kcoyle> simonstey: seconding solution
19:14:01 <Dimitris> I also agree
19:15:01 <kcoyle> hknublau: added property constraints and inverse prop constraints to cntext of sh:or/and/not
19:15:09 <ericP> PROPOSED: amend property constraint take logical operations sh:and, sh:or, sh:not
19:15:10 <simonstey> +1
19:15:12 <hknublau> +1
19:15:14 <Dimitris> also inverse
19:15:14 <kcoyle> +1
19:15:18 <jamsden> +1
19:15:32 <Labra> +0.5
19:15:42 <ericP> +1
19:15:47 <Dimitris> +1
19:16:10 <ericP> RESOLVED: amend property constraint and inverse property constraint to take logical operations sh:and, sh:or, sh:not
19:16:34 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-134
19:16:34 <trackbot> issue-134 -- does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints -- open
19:16:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/134
19:17:41 <kcoyle> ericP: difference between prop and invProp is an issue... from Peter
19:17:55 <kcoyle> hknublau: dimitris proposed a solution that would simplify this
19:18:21 <kcoyle> ... you don't know what kind of constraint you are getting
19:18:52 <Dimitris> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016May/0080.html
19:20:25 <kcoyle> ericP: one issue being able to know if constraint is inverse or not? cannot have flag that is boolean - inverse T/F?
19:21:36 <kcoyle> hknublau: with boolean you can have multiple values; will need a type arc? all constraint types are disjoint
19:22:01 <kcoyle> ericP: all require something in the graph that doesn't have a default - ?
19:22:19 <kcoyle> hknublau: if you put nothing, then it's like rdfs:range, and it infers a default type
19:23:04 <kcoyle> hknublau: property defines constraint type sh:property, sh:inverseProperty
19:24:01 <kcoyle> ... separate sparql constraint form node constraint; then sh:constraint is separate - may be renamed in future
19:24:44 <kcoyle> simonstey: a good idea; not strong about splitting off sparql cnstraints
19:25:20 <kcoyle> ... might help when we hae a different execution language (not sparql)
19:25:52 <kcoyle> ... do we want to name it 'sparql constraint" or a more generic "execution language constraint"?
19:26:43 <ericP> <S> sh:sparqlConstraint [ ... ]  vs.  <S> sh:scriptConstraint [ sh:lang sh:SPARQL ]
19:26:55 <Dimitris> or sh:native ?
19:27:00 <ericP> nice
19:27:31 <kcoyle> Dimitris: no problem with naming
19:28:44 <kcoyle> hknublau: generalizing has a benefit, but not sure if it's a strong argument; it's the split that matters
19:30:52 <Dimitris> STRAWPOLL: adjust sh:constraint and make it link only to sh:NodeConstraints, SPARQL constraints will be linked with another propoerty e.g. sh:sparqlConstraint
19:31:01 <hknublau> +1
19:31:13 <Dimitris> +1
19:31:15 <TallTed> +1
19:31:15 <jamsden> +1
19:31:30 <simonstey> +1
19:31:38 <Labra> +1
19:31:45 <ericP> +1
19:32:00 <kcoyle> 0
19:32:35 <ericP> trackbot, end meeting
19:32:35 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:32:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, kcoyle, simonstey, hknublau, TallTed, Dimitris, ericP, jamsden, labra
19:32:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:32:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/12-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:32:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:32:44 <RRSAgent> I see no action items