18:00:09 <pfps> present+
18:00:25 <simonstey> present+
18:01:19 <kcoyle> present+
18:01:37 <AndyS> Hello
18:01:39 <jamsden> jamsden has joined #shapes
18:02:32 <AndyS> present+
18:03:41 <Dimitris> present+
18:04:15 <AndyS> I'll scribe
<AndyS> scribenick: AndyS
18:05:10 <pfps> OK - the punishment for bad scribing is expulsion from the group, right?
18:05:57 <TallTed> present+
18:06:06 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
<ericP> chair: ericP
<ecriP> regrets: Arnaud, markq, hknublau
18:06:13 <ericP> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.06.30
<ericP> topic: Admin
18:06:25 <ericP> Approve minutes of the 23 June 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/23-shapes-minutes.html
18:06:32 <pfps> minutes looked fine to me
18:06:36 <AndyS> +1
18:07:09 <ericP> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 23 June 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/23-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:13 <ericP> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 23 June 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/23-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:53 <AndyS> topic: Disposal of raised issues
18:08:14 <AndyS> pfps: 171 and 172 are more like glitches
18:08:26 <AndyS> ... 170 is the SPARQL issues.
18:08:39 <AndyS> ... as my leaving present to you all.
18:09:06 <AndyS> EricP: thanks to pfps for his contributions on the working group.
18:09:47 <AndyS> EricP: quite a lot of discussion
18:09:56 <TallTed> +1 open all three...
18:09:57 <ericP> PROPOSED: raise issue-170
18:10:02 <AndyS> ... any objections to raising 170?
18:10:06 <pfps> s/raise/open/?
18:10:15 <ericP> PROPOSED: open issue-170
18:10:22 <pfps> +3, distributed evenly
18:10:24 <Dimitris> +1
18:10:30 <hsolbrig> +1
18:10:30 <simonstey> +1
18:10:31 <TallTed> +1
18:10:33 <kcoyle> +1
18:10:35 <ericP> RESOLVED: open issue-170
18:10:36 <jamsden> +1
18:11:16 <hsolbrig> ... pfps: 171 and 172 are glitches bordering on editorial
18:11:40 <ericP> scribenick: hsolbrig 
18:11:41 <simonstey> issue-171
18:11:41 <trackbot> issue-171 -- sh:classIn SPARQL definition incorrect -- raised
18:11:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/171
18:11:50 <simonstey> issue-172
18:11:50 <trackbot> issue-172 -- the sh:nodeKind SPARQL definition is unnecessarily complex -- raised
18:11:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/172
18:11:50 <ericP> RESOLVED: open issue-171, issue-172
18:11:56 <pfps> +1
18:11:59 <Dimitris> +1
18:12:04 <kcoyle> +1
18:12:06 <jamsden> +1
18:12:06 <simonstey> +1
18:12:09 <TallTed> +1
18:12:18 <hsolbrig> +1
18:12:23 <TallTed> s/RESOLVED/PROPOSED/
18:12:28 <ericP> RESOLVED: open issue-171, issue-172
18:12:43 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-41: property paths
18:12:51 <simonstey> issue-41
18:12:51  * trackbot is looking up issue-41.
18:12:51 <trackbot> issue-41 -- Using property paths to refer to values/types? -- open
18:12:51 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/41
18:13:28 <hsolbrig> simonstey: issue raised more than a year ago.  About including property paths...
18:13:59 <ericP> q=
18:14:12 <ericP> q+ to ask about cardinality
18:14:26 <hsolbrig> ... issue was resolved back then as "nice feature" but could be done through native sparql
18:15:05 <hsolbrig> ... issue was revived and Holger made a proposal that was similar to original.
18:16:18 <ericP> ack next
18:16:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:16:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-irc
18:16:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:16:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:16:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:16:36 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
18:16:37 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:16:37 <trackbot> Date: 30 June 2016
18:16:43 <simonstey> present+
18:16:44 <hsolbrig> Couldn't hear Dimitris' response
18:17:03 <ericP> present+
18:17:08 <hsolbrig> present+
18:17:13 <AndyS> present+
18:17:13 <Dimitris> present+
18:17:15 <kcoyle> present+
18:17:19 <TallTed> present+
18:17:50 <hsolbrig> Dimitris: Idea was accomodidate Simon's issue
18:18:14 <hsolbrig> ... remove reverse property constraint and use sh:predicate for forward predicate or list based path
18:18:26 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS
18:18:48 <AndyS> Dimitris: only simple paths e.g. inverse
18:19:29 <AndyS> EricP: not * and +     what about "/"
18:19:58 <AndyS> Dimitris: it's a list so each element is a path step
18:20:17 <simonstey> q+
18:20:27 <AndyS> EricP: SPARQL is all ways to satisfy the path
18:20:45 <simonstey> -q
18:20:47 <ericP> ack next
18:20:53 <pfps> the question is whether there is, in effect, a DISTINCT in the query
18:23:07 <ericP> PROPOSED: change PropertyConstraint and InversePropertyConstraint to one type of Constraint with either a predicate (which implies arcs-out) or a path. The path does not include * or + and cardinalities on the resulting node value set are satisfied by combination of cardinalities on the steps.
18:24:12 <AndyS> pfps: This is a new kind of thing - (noises)
18:25:05 <pfps> is this something new?  before all that counted was the number of values, now this appears to be counting paths  of course, the two where (roughly) the same before.
18:25:12 <hsolbrig> q+
18:26:39 <AndyS> hsolbrig: how does inverse realised in this design?
18:26:50 <Dimitris> sh:path ( sh:invesre ex:p)
18:26:56 <AndyS> hsolbrig: how is inverse predicate realised in this design?
18:27:20 <Dimitris> I do not remember the exact syntax Holger proposed but is similar to the above
18:27:40 <AndyS> EricP: we have a fixed series of steps inc reverse path
18:27:49 <simonstey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jun/0134.html
18:29:40 <Dimitris> sh:path ( ex:p1 [sh:invesre ex:p2] ex:p3)
18:30:16 <AndyS> SPARQL --  ex:p1/^ex:p2/ex:p3
18:30:54 <ericP> sh:path ( ex:p1 ex:p2b ex:p3 ) . ex:p2b sh:inverse ex:p2 .
18:31:36 <AndyS> EricP: In my example - I put in an IRI for the bnode.
18:31:47 <AndyS> Dimitris: deals to be sorted out
18:32:21 <AndyS> ... can also have nested paths with nested () which are bnodes in the grap.
18:32:29 <AndyS> EricP: ready to vote?
18:32:55 <Dimitris> +1
18:33:34 <simonstey> I made a proposal a year ago https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jul/0070.html (but it's not using lists and is a bit verbose though)
18:33:43 <AndyS> ... this proposal unblocks progress on syntax.
18:34:31 <ericP> PROPOSED: change PropertyConstraint and InversePropertyConstraint to one type of Constraint with either a predicate (which implies arcs-out) or a path. The path does not include * or + and cardinalities on the resulting node value set are satisfied by combination of cardinalities on the steps. Exact syntax (e.g. nested paths, behavior of bnodes) to be resolved.
18:34:38 <AndyS> simonstey: pointer in minutes is good.
18:35:04 <simonstey> +1
18:35:06 <pfps> 0
18:35:08 <Dimitris> +1
18:35:09 <hsolbrig> +0
18:35:11 <kcoyle> 0
18:35:14 <jamsden> +0
18:35:16 <TallTed> +1
18:35:52 <AndyS> EricP: advice to editors - tentative support
18:36:09 <ericP> RESOLVED: change PropertyConstraint and InversePropertyConstraint to one type of Constraint with either a predicate (which implies arcs-out) or a path. The path does not include * or + and cardinalities on the resulting node value set are satisfied by combination of cardinalities on the steps. Exact syntax (e.g. nested paths, behavior of bnodes) to be resolved.
18:36:26 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-52: abstract syntax
18:37:27 <AndyS> EricP: email -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jun/0159.html on shex/shacl syntax
18:37:55 <AndyS> ... was up to date until the path resolution above
18:38:48 <AndyS> pfps: Didn't see a need for an abstract syntax.
18:39:07 <jamsden> q+
18:39:17 <ericP> ack next
18:39:20 <ericP> ack next
18:39:51 <AndyS> jamsden: What is the purpose here?
18:41:00 <AndyS> EricP: Purpose is to have a terse semantics and relate a shex parse tree to shacl (for the overlap)
18:41:25 <AndyS> ... e.g. SPARQL does abstract syntax to algebra
18:41:53 <AndyS> ... this is a "shapes algebra" equivalent
18:42:18 <AndyS> jamsden: it creates redundancy in defn terms
18:42:45 <AndyS> ... how does it affect the reSpec?
18:43:11 <AndyS> EricP: This is not huge. Little or no automation needed.
18:44:01 <AndyS> ... not a machine readable tool
18:44:17 <AndyS> jamsden: suggest non-normative appendix?
18:44:52 <AndyS> simonstey: xtext in Eclipse useful? Auto generate parsers from this.
18:45:17 <AndyS> EricP: Purpose today is to highlight its existence.
18:45:20 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-139: Universal applicability
18:45:41 <simonstey> issue-139
18:45:41 <trackbot> issue-139 -- Can all constraint properties be applied in all scenarios? -- open
18:45:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/139
18:47:03 <AndyS> pfps: worry is that language is complex, many restrictions and rules, so maybe make any constraint anywhere - there has been push back.
18:47:40 <AndyS> ... everything is a constraint.
18:48:26 <AndyS> ... interacts with path
18:49:33 <ericP> -> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#DisjointConstraintComponent NC, PC, IPC table
18:49:50 <AndyS> ... see table in sec 4 ... quite complicated ... so let anything happen
18:50:51 <AndyS> ... alternative is to remove the SHACL rules in the table and allow all possible uses even if they do not have much usefulness.
18:50:56 <Dimitris> q+
18:51:19 <AndyS> "Generalised RDF"
18:54:04 <AndyS> pfps: in some places e.g. can't have literals in some places in RDF - we are charged to future proof SHACL so may change.  And some tripestores allow it.
18:55:55 <Dimitris> all this are now solved with the new path syntax
18:56:09 <Dimitris> there is no longer a distinction between PC & IPC
18:56:41 <TallTed> q+
18:57:05 <AndyS> pfps: effect of my proposal is to put check marks everywhere.
18:57:23 <AndyS> Dimitris: only NC and paths now
18:57:26 <ericP> ack next
18:57:55 <ericP> ack next
18:57:55 <AndyS> ... table will by modified / removed.
18:58:08 <pfps> so far, this is not about performance - that's a separate issue
18:58:39 <AndyS> TallTed: some strictly silliness is useful to check for silly data.
18:58:49 <ericP> q+ to describe the 3 apparent classes of Property
18:58:51 <ericP> ack next
18:58:52 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to describe the 3 apparent classes of Property
18:58:54 <AndyS> ... it is a valid validation
19:01:31 <AndyS> pfps: sounds reasonable
19:02:00 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-133: syntax
19:02:20 <simonstey> issue-133
19:02:20 <trackbot> issue-133 -- syntax simplification and regularization -- open
19:02:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/133
19:03:15 <AndyS> pfps: some of this has already been resolved.
19:04:32 <AndyS> ... ducks example
19:05:55 <AndyS> ... shape or constraint : striped syntax leads to a constraint just to keep two shapes apart.
19:06:21 <AndyS> ... we can have just constraints
19:06:37 <AndyS> EricP: shex - just triple constraints
19:07:21 <ericP> I heard that as "ConApe" as in "ConstrationShape"
19:07:33 <ericP> q?
19:07:42 <AndyS> pfps: constraint or shape in any place
19:11:51 <pfps> This is recapping a long discussion of quite some time ago.
19:12:02 <AndyS> Ptr to email?
19:13:36 <Dimitris> q+
19:16:11 <ericP> ack next
19:16:43 <AndyS> Dimitris: closer to pfps's syntax now - diff is that he works on sets
19:17:02 <AndyS> ... node constraints else quite similar.
19:18:51 <AndyS> (detailed discussion)
19:20:05 <AndyS> pfps: things on sets can't be in NCs
19:20:27 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-150: nested severities
19:21:19 <Dimitris> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/150
19:21:25 <AndyS> Dimitris: not intuitive how it would work.
19:21:38 <AndyS> ... link to info or violations
19:22:10 <AndyS> ... an area for discussion to get to a proposal.
19:23:53 <AndyS> ... sh:Warning with sh:Violation and also sh:Info inside
19:26:55 <AndyS> pfps: issues with composition of shapes
19:27:05 <Dimitris> q+
19:27:31 <AndyS> EricP: preprocessing step for nested constraints/violations?
19:28:31 <AndyS> pfps: handles level at runtime to pass highest priority
19:28:45 <ericP> ack next
19:28:50 <AndyS> ... separately how do the messages come out?
19:29:39 <AndyS> Dimitris: I proposed treat everything as an error
19:30:07 <pfps> my problem with violation levels is that a shape that produces only informational results can't be used inside another shape
19:31:58 <pfps> Dimitris's proposal would at least change the validation reports that are emitted, so it is not just editorial
19:32:37 <AndyS> Dimitris: can make proposal for a resolution
19:33:29 <kcoyle> bye Peter!
19:33:37 <AndyS> EricP: suggest Dimitris writes consolidated proposal
19:33:44 <Dimitris> bye Peter!
19:33:46 <pfps> bye
19:33:49 <AndyS> Farewell to Peter!
19:33:52 <simonstey> bye peter
19:34:07 <ericP> trackbot, end meeting?
19:34:07 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:34:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been simonstey, ericP, hsolbrig, AndyS, Dimitris, kcoyle, TallTed, jamsden, pfps
19:34:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:34:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:34:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:34:16 <RRSAgent> I see no action items