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
19:03:41 <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
19:05:23 <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> topic: 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, marqh
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