IRC log of shapes on 2016-05-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:59:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:59:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/19-shapes-irc
18:00:00 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:00:00 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
18:00:02 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:00:02 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
18:00:03 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:00:03 [trackbot]
Date: 19 May 2016
18:00:21 [Arnaud]
present+
18:00:42 [Arnaud]
present+ pfps
18:01:41 [kcoyle]
present+
18:03:06 [Arnaud]
present+ ericP
18:03:29 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
18:06:41 [Arnaud]
present+ TallTed, hknublau
18:07:50 [Arnaud]
regrets: Dimitris
18:07:52 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
18:08:01 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.05.19
18:09:30 [Arnaud]
regrets: Dimitris, simonstey
18:11:06 [pfps]
scripenick: pfps
18:11:09 [marqh]
marqh has joined #shapes
18:11:19 [pfps]
scribenick: pfps
18:11:43 [pfps]
topic: administration
18:11:47 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 12 May 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/12-shapes-minutes.html
18:11:54 [pfps]
minutes looked acceptable
18:12:00 [pfps]
+1
18:12:06 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 12 May 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/05/12-shapes-minutes.html
18:12:15 [pfps]
arnaud: mailing list
18:12:32 [pfps]
arnaud: non-WG members are able to post to the mailing list
18:12:55 [pfps]
eric: new W3C policy is do what you want
18:13:35 [pfps]
eric: the working group is now member-only
18:14:03 [Labra]
Labra has joined #shapes
18:14:06 [pfps]
eric: hopefully no one is being bounced by using an address different from their W3C address
18:14:42 [Labra]
+present: labra
18:15:05 [pfps]
arnaud: one reason to limit the list is to easily see what can be included in the working group output
18:15:12 [pfps]
topic: public comments
18:15:35 [pfps]
arnaud: tom baker sent in a long comment and the WG discussed it a couple of weeks ago
18:16:04 [pfps]
arnaud: I responded thanking him and saying that the WG is working on his comments
18:16:20 [pfps]
arnaud: peter sent in a potential response
18:16:50 [pfps]
arnaud: a response to tom would help the WG look at some of our issues
18:17:17 [pfps]
arnaud: maybe it is just more important for the wg to think about tom's comments
18:17:51 [pfps]
arnaud: what should the wg do here? just take tom's comments under advisement or try to respond directly?
18:17:54 [pfps]
q+
18:17:58 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:18:31 [pfps]
pfps: tom is the only really substantive after the FPWD so we ignore his concerns at our peril, I think
18:19:18 [pfps]
eric: if there is no formal response then there is the possibility of doing nothing substantive
18:19:34 [pfps]
arnaud: the wg could raise issues where appropriate
18:19:46 [pfps]
pfps: that would work for me and I am willing to raise these issues
18:20:05 [pfps]
karen: I haven't looked at tom's comments as issues
18:20:30 [pfps]
arnaud: peter has some responses and some "needs work" bits
18:21:11 [pfps]
arnaud: what should the process be for tom's comments
18:21:42 [marqh]
q+
18:22:12 [pfps]
arnaud: I suggest raising issues for parts that need to be done
18:22:40 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
18:23:24 [pfps]
marqh: I like providing a response linking to issues
18:23:40 [pfps]
arnaud: let's proceed that way
18:24:02 [marqh]
+present: marqh
18:24:16 [hknublau]
present+
18:25:01 [pfps]
pfps: much of tom's comments have to do with the presentation of SHACL at the beginning of the spec and this reiterates comments from the working group
18:25:27 [pfps]
pfps: at some point very soon the spec has to be readable by non-WG members and it's not now
18:25:59 [pfps]
arnaud: isn't the working group discussion
18:27:36 [marqh]
q+
18:27:37 [pfps]
pfps: there is discussion about wording - "constraint" vs "validate" etc
18:27:44 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
18:28:01 [pfps]
pfps: the spec needs a good introduction
18:28:35 [pfps]
markh: there should be an issue on this point
18:28:38 [kcoyle_]
kcoyle_ has joined #shapes
18:28:52 [pfps]
pfps: I'll create an issue on this
18:29:19 [pfps]
karen: needing a good introduction is one thing
18:29:46 [pfps]
karen: tom is concerned about some technical points - variation from RDF
18:30:44 [pfps]
arnaud: we are not done with the spec so there is still work to be done related to all this
18:31:09 [pfps]
arnaud: some of these are editorial issues, some may not be
18:32:03 [pfps]
arnaud: please look over tom's comments and see if there are issues to be raised there
18:32:24 [pfps]
topic: ISSUE-141
18:32:28 [pfps]
ISSUE-141
18:32:28 [trackbot]
ISSUE-141 -- How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges -- open
18:32:28 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/141
18:32:45 [pfps]
arnaud: we discussed this last week
18:33:07 [pfps]
arnaud: the major seems to favor option 3a
18:33:10 [pfps]
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-141:_Mixed_ranges
18:33:22 [hknublau]
q+
18:33:29 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:34:26 [pfps]
holger: I suggest that we postpone this as it depends on the other syntax changes
18:34:58 [pfps]
holger: if there is a convenient syntax for "string or postal address" then the need for this is very reduced
18:35:09 [pfps]
+1
18:35:27 [kcoyle_]
+1
18:35:27 [TallTed]
+1
18:35:51 [pfps]
topic: ISSUE-133 and other syntax issues
18:35:54 [pfps]
ISSUE-133
18:35:54 [trackbot]
ISSUE-133 -- syntax simplification and regularization -- open
18:35:54 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/133
18:36:37 [pfps]
arnaud: there has been discussion on different aspects of syntax simplification
18:36:45 [hknublau]
q+
18:36:54 [pfps]
arnaud: this needs to be resolved so that progress can be made elsewhere
18:37:13 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:37:36 [pfps]
holger: there seem to be at least there syntax issues that are uncontroversial
18:37:58 [pfps]
holger: sparql constraints, property scope, and value shape
18:38:00 [pfps]
q+
18:38:09 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:39:17 [pfps]
pfps: I don't have issues with these, I think, but they are infinitesimals compared to significant progress
18:39:36 [pfps]
holger: I think that there is substantial progress here
18:40:05 [pfps]
arnaud: is there more than what holger listed that is non-controversial
18:40:55 [hknublau]
PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-160, generalizing sh:valueShape into sh:shape, also allowing it for node constraints
18:40:57 [hknublau]
+1
18:40:59 [pfps]
q+
18:41:08 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:41:57 [Arnaud]
issue-160
18:41:57 [trackbot]
issue-160 -- Shall we generalize sh:valueShape to sh:shape -- open
18:41:57 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/160
18:42:26 [kcoyle_]
q+
18:42:30 [pfps]
pfps: this is "implementation" to clear the way for synatx changes - if this is supposed to be done to help fix then syntax, then it lives or dies on whether the syntax change is a good idea, so that should be discussed first
18:42:32 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle_
18:43:10 [pfps]
karen: I'm not clear why sh:valueShape is actually needed, what does it do that has to be done and are there any other options
18:43:54 [pfps]
holger: I believe that this is the easiest way to check a value for embedded shapes
18:43:56 [pfps]
q+
18:44:21 [pfps]
pfps: my apologies, please ignore my last comment
18:44:37 [pfps]
karen: this is a way to have a shape within a shape
18:45:03 [pfps]
https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ValueShapeConstraintComponent
18:46:05 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:46:19 [pfps]
q+
18:46:26 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:46:29 [pfps]
pfps: what would sh:value do?
18:46:36 [pfps]
s/do/provide/
18:47:14 [pfps]
q+
18:47:46 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:47:51 [pfps]
holger: the proposal is to generalize to allow other kinds of constraints
18:48:55 [pfps]
pfps: this is a slogan not a proposal - to make this change requires some notion of how this new thing works
18:50:25 [pfps]
holger: isn't it obvious
18:52:08 [pfps]
pfps: not at all - I often cannot come up with intuitions behind changes and thus I don't know what is being proposed unless the details are provided
18:52:30 [pfps]
arnaud: a one-line explanation is often not adequate
18:53:03 [pfps]
arnaud: what can we do now?
18:53:05 [pfps]
q+
18:53:12 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:54:17 [kcoyle_]
q+
18:56:29 [pfps]
pfps: I feel that there is problem with the intuitions underlying SHACL
18:56:57 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle_
18:56:59 [pfps]
pfps: fixing them requires a revolution not an evolution
18:57:37 [pfps]
karen: they way that I came up with a lot of the questions was that I was trying to figure out what SHACL was and I was unable to do so
18:57:52 [pfps]
s/they/the
18:59:20 [pfps]
tom: let's move on
18:59:26 [marqh]
q+
18:59:28 [pfps]
arnaud: but how to move on?
18:59:31 [Arnaud]
s/tom/TallTed/
18:59:35 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
19:00:49 [pfps]
marqh: I'm quite taken with Karen's suggestion - a primer would have to provide the notions underlying SHACL
19:01:21 [pfps]
marqh: and problems generating it would provide issues with the spec
19:01:35 [marqh]
q+
19:01:40 [pfps]
arnaud: so do you have a start for the primer, karen
19:02:12 [pfps]
karen: probably - I can put what I have on github, after some sanity checking
19:02:26 [pfps]
arnaud: I encourage you to share early
19:02:35 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
19:02:52 [pfps]
karen: I'll send a message to the list when I've done this
19:03:09 [pfps]
marqh: perhaps a primer issue would help
19:03:24 [pfps]
karen; I can do that as well
19:03:41 [pfps]
karen: I can do that as well
19:04:13 [pfps]
arnaud; that can't hurt
19:04:17 [pfps]
q+
19:04:22 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:04:37 [pfps]
arnaud: that can't hurt
19:05:23 [pfps]
pfps: issue-150 is on the agenda but I don't know if we have enough people to talk about that
19:06:41 [pfps]
arnaud: this needs to be addressed, but it is not a central issue
19:07:06 [Arnaud]
issue-150
19:07:06 [trackbot]
issue-150 -- Treatment of nested severities -- open
19:07:06 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/150
19:07:53 [Arnaud]
pfps: we've talked about severities a lot a while ago and I think Dimitris's question is actually answered in the spec
19:08:17 [Arnaud]
pfps: but there is an issue: if you want to do a lint type of checker
19:08:33 [Arnaud]
... have some warnings
19:08:56 [Arnaud]
... there is trouble with nested shapes
19:09:32 [Arnaud]
... especially with negation
19:10:06 [Arnaud]
the negation of a shape that is warning is everything is wrong
19:10:13 [Arnaud]
s/the/... the/
19:10:24 [Arnaud]
ericP: you have a solution?
19:11:04 [Arnaud]
pfps: what does ShEx do?
19:11:11 [Arnaud]
ericP: we don't have severities
19:12:46 [Arnaud]
pfps: I have an idea but haven't figured it out whether it works all the time
19:13:01 [Arnaud]
s/it out/out/
19:13:22 [Arnaud]
... or if there are gotchas somewhere
19:13:56 [Arnaud]
ericP: is there a body of work we can draw from?
19:13:59 [Arnaud]
pfps: no
19:14:13 [Arnaud]
... the best place to look at is exceptions in programing languages
19:14:52 [pfps]
pfps: one way forward is that instead of looking for violations, instead look for a severity at least as strong as the current severity
19:17:05 [ericP]
<IssueShape> { "error" is:submitter @<UserShape> } <UserShape> { "informational" foaf:name LITERAL } \ { <issue> is:submitter [ foaf:notName "Bob" ] }
19:17:49 [marqh]
q+
19:18:45 [pfps]
pfps: I would have to look at this off line
19:18:49 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
19:19:21 [pfps]
markqh: how important are severities - there are only three
19:19:43 [pfps]
marqh: if there are lots of warnings then no one looks at them
19:20:02 [pfps]
marqh: when would non-violations be needed?
19:20:15 [pfps]
s/markqh/marqh/
19:20:32 [ericP]
q+ to say this is a longshot but what can you manage this by rewrites instead of dynamic paramaters to sh:hasShape?
19:20:42 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
19:20:42 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say this is a longshot but what can you manage this by rewrites instead of dynamic paramaters to sh:hasShape?
19:20:52 [pfps]
arnaud: there have been discussions about how many different levels to have
19:21:14 [pfps]
eric: rewrite as nested shapes
19:21:31 [pfps]
pfps: maybe but there still needs to be a spec on how it all works
19:23:00 [pfps]
pfps: I think that the spec says what happens - the question is whether this is the right thing
19:23:43 [pfps]
action eric: check what happens in the ShEx extension that has severities
19:23:44 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-37 - Check what happens in the shex extension that has severities [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2016-05-26].
19:24:49 [pfps]
arnaud: maybe we can learn from the way that ShEx does this
19:25:36 [pfps]
arnaud: we'll talk next week about publishing the draft
19:26:21 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:26:21 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:26:21 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, pfps, kcoyle, ericP, TallTed, hknublau
19:26:25 [Labra]
exit
19:26:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:26:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/19-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:26:30 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:26:30 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/19-shapes-actions.rdf :
19:26:30 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: eric to check what happens in the ShEx extension that has severities [1]
19:26:30 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/19-shapes-irc#T19-23-43