18:00:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:00:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-shapes-irc
18:00:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:00:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:00:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:00:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
18:00:59 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:00:59 <trackbot> Date: 07 July 2016
18:01:32 <jamsden> jamsden has joined #shapes
18:02:22 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:02:32 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.07.07
18:03:29 <Arnaud> present+
18:03:43 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:03:52 <simonstey> present+
18:04:13 <AndyS> present+
18:04:13 <kcoyle> present+
18:04:20 <jamsden> present+
18:04:51 <hknublau> present+
18:05:32 <TallTed> present+
18:05:39 <pano> present+
18:08:27 <AndyS> FYI -- Progress on pre-bind/EXISTS: Peter's summary of problems to look at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-exists/2016Jul/0020.html
18:09:46 <Dimitris> present+
<hsolbrig> scribenick: hsolbrig
<hsolbrig> topic: Admin
18:11:15 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 30 June 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html
18:12:11 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
18:12:16 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbrig
18:12:22 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 30 June 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html
18:13:13 <hsolbrig> arnaud: Eric - you have an open action.
18:14:16 <hsolbrig> topic: ISSUE-132
18:14:23 <Arnaud> issue-132
18:14:23 <trackbot> issue-132 -- sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available -- open
18:14:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/132
18:14:52 <hknublau> q+
18:14:54 <Dimitris> q+
18:14:57 <hsolbrig> ericP: I'm not sure how this goes away...
18:15:07 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:15:14 <Dimitris> q-
18:16:01 <hsolbrig> hknublau:  the wording was referring to propertyConstraint...
18:16:17 <hsolbrig> eric: sparql definitions still look at predicate?
18:16:43 <hsolbrig> hknublau: no there is no predicate anymore, just ask queries.
18:16:52 <hsolbrig> eric: When was that changed?
18:17:00 <hsolbrig> hknublau:  this week.
18:17:24 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-132 as no longer relevant, sh:predicate is no longer used in the latest editor's draft
18:18:06 <hsolbrig> hknublau: ?predicate has disappeared except in definition of sh:closed.
18:18:09 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-132 as no longer relevant, ?predicate is no longer used in the latest editor's draft
18:18:16 <hknublau> +1
18:18:17 <ericP> +1
18:18:17 <hsolbrig> +1
18:18:23 <simonstey> +1
18:18:28 <Dimitris> +1
18:18:30 <kcoyle> +1
18:18:30 <TallTed> +1
18:18:46 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-132 as no longer relevant, ?predicate is no longer used in the latest editor's draft
18:19:01 <hsolbrig> topic: ISSUE-41
18:19:01 <trackbot> issue-41 -- Using property paths to refer to values/types? -- open
18:19:01 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/41
18:20:18 <hsolbrig> ericP: worth noting that support was not overwhelming in discussion.
18:20:50 <hsolbrig> arnaud: how much more time do we need?
18:21:15 <ericP> just above <https://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes#resolution04>
18:22:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-41, based on previous resolution and latest editor's draft
18:23:03 <simonstey> +1
18:23:03 <hknublau> +1
18:23:04 <ericP> +0
18:23:05 <hsolbrig> +1
18:23:06 <jamsden> +1
18:23:12 <Dimitris> +1
18:23:28 <TallTed> +1
18:23:31 <kcoyle> 0
18:23:54 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-41, based on previous resolution and latest editor's draft
18:24:07 <simonstey> topic: ISSUE-65
18:24:07 <trackbot> issue-65 -- Consistency and cohesiveness of nomenclature (e.g., shapes, scopes, and constraints) -- open
18:24:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65
18:24:39 <hsolbrig> arnaud: we spent quite a bit of time on the terminology in the document. Spec has been reworked with help from Dimitris and Karen...
18:24:58 <hsolbrig> ... it doesn't prevent anybody from bringing up specifics later on.
18:25:07 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-65, no longer relevant given all the changes made to the draft
18:25:11 <jamsden> +1
18:25:14 <hknublau> +1
18:25:14 <Dimitris> +1
18:25:17 <hsolbrig> +1
18:25:19 <simonstey> +1
18:25:23 <TallTed> +1
18:25:24 <kcoyle> +1
18:25:32 <ericP> +1
18:25:42 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-65, no longer relevant given all the changes made to the draft
18:26:00 <hsolbrig> topic: ISSUE-166
18:26:00 <trackbot> issue-166 -- separate out advanced part of specification -- open
18:26:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/166
18:26:23 <hsolbrig> arnaud: relates to discussion about how many documents we should have...
18:26:44 <hsolbrig> ... several members proposed split, TopQuadrant was resisting ...
18:26:58 <kcoyle> q+
18:27:21 <hsolbrig> ... on mailer, external party (Tom Baker) said why not split?
18:27:41 <jamsden> q+
18:27:43 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:28:30 <hsolbrig> kcoyle: Holger's email indicated that there are dependencies, so they aren't entirely separable.  Would be better looking at after language were solidified...
18:28:51 <hsolbrig> ... prefer keeping it open and coming back at the end.
18:28:54 <Arnaud> ack jamsden
18:29:33 <hsolbrig> jamsden: went through editing work for 7 part OSLC.  Multi-parts add editing overhead, but I like decoupling and separation of concerns.
18:30:02 <hsolbrig> ... separation might be useful.  Right now benefit might be low compared to cost
18:31:01 <hsolbrig> AndyS: split that is too much on the expert side.  If core and extension mechanisms reflect clear difference...
18:32:14 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  from audience view, makes sense.  From editorial perspective, helps identify dependencies so it might be a useful exercise
18:33:06 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  don't hear a push to split, but happy to leave issue open for the time being
18:33:24 <jamsden> q+
18:33:35 <Arnaud> ack jamsden
18:34:07 <hsolbrig> jamsden: disagree.  Really good for editors to know what they are working with.  Organization is best done up front and then stuck with.  Refactor earlier rather than later.
18:34:27 <hsolbrig> ... recommend doing or not doing, but not delaying any longer.
18:35:54 <hsolbrig> hknublau: technically it is possible.  There are references that go across boundaries.  html right now comes from style sheet, would loose that ability with multi documents...
18:36:27 <TallTed> in the split case, the terms section should get replicated ... the headache is making sure that changes to either doc reflect in the other
18:36:40 <hsolbrig> ... SPARQL queries in section 4 have references to advanced sections and include pre-bindings.   Had included it, but it led to duplication
18:37:01 <TallTed> (personally, I see no need for this split.)
18:37:52 <hsolbrig> Dimitris: agree with Holger. Prefer one document, but if we split it would prefer at the end vs. now
18:38:11 <hknublau> I think the split would be less relevant if we had a Primer.
18:39:11 <hsolbrig> arnaud: not certain that Primer will ever happen.  Time is short
18:39:19 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-166, keeping the spec as one document
18:39:29 <hknublau> +1
18:39:36 <jamsden> +.6
18:39:39 <simonstey> +0
18:39:40 <Dimitris> +1
18:39:41 <hsolbrig> +0
18:39:41 <TallTed> +1
18:39:42 <kcoyle> -.5
18:39:42 <AndyS> +0.5
18:39:49 <ericP> -.5
18:40:11 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-166, keeping the spec as one document
18:40:29 <hsolbrig> topic: ISSUE-52
18:40:29 <trackbot> issue-52 -- Define an Abstract Syntax for SHACL -- open
18:40:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/52
18:41:13 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  Eric submitted an abstract syntax for the core, meant to help bridge ShEx/SHACL gaps
18:41:19 <jamsden> q+
18:41:22 <hsolbrig> ... what do people think?
18:41:31 <Arnaud> ack jamsden
18:42:32 <hsolbrig> jamsden:  I looked at it and like it.  As spec reader it confuses me, as there are multiple syntaxes -- core, ShEx, this and extensibility mechanism.
18:42:50 <hsolbrig> ... don't think it needs to be normative.  Is there a non-normative work product that can be published?
18:42:53 <hknublau> +1
18:43:25 <hsolbrig> arnaud: Yes - can be published as non-normative.
18:43:56 <hsolbrig> ericP: Wanted a way to bridge ShEx syntax like SPARQL has a grammar and abstract syntax and semantics against abstract syntax.
18:43:59 <kcoyle> q+
18:44:44 <hsolbrig> ericP: a few people found it a quick read to help understand SHACL.  Benefits to people who are familiar with abstract syntax...
18:45:14 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  publish on its own -- working group note?  Non-normative appendix?
18:45:41 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:46:09 <hsolbrig> kcoyle:  Does this formalism actually express everything that is in SHACL.
18:46:34 <hsolbrig> ericp: covered SHACL core except hasShape recursiveness until last week.  Path expressions have changed
18:46:51 <jamsden> q+
18:46:57 <hsolbrig> kcoyle:  Could it be exactly parallel to SHACL core?
18:47:02 <hsolbrig> EricP: yes
18:47:11 <hsolbrig> kcoyle: Extension mechanism?
18:47:52 <hsolbrig> EricP: more complicated.  Core is not that complex -- fairly simple rule-based process...
18:48:24 <hsolbrig> ... rule for SHACL extensions is more abstract.  Have to turn into SPARQL, construct SPARQL query, etc.
18:49:08 <hsolbrig> kcoyle: Since we've said extension doesn't have to be SHACL, I'm confused.  Is it defined in a way that uses other technologies?
18:49:43 <hsolbrig> EricP: SHACL core could be implemented using Python/rdflib for example...
18:50:29 <hsolbrig> ... in principle, you could implement all the stuff in the SPARQL extension mechanism, but I don't have any idea what a JavaScript extension mechanism(s) would look like.
18:51:03 <hsolbrig> kcoyle: Tells me that core should not be dependent on SPARQL, so abstract syntax would be suitable to describe core.
18:51:25 <TallTed> s/extension doesn't have to be SHACL/extension doesn't have to be SPARQL/
18:52:21 <hsolbrig> arnaud: non-normative? Could be normative and defer to SPARQL if issues or visa-versa.  We have to make sure we don't break what exists.
18:52:23 <jamsden> q+
18:52:28 <Arnaud> ack jamsden
18:53:20 <hsolbrig> jamsden:  Any time you include something in a spec, you need to consider (1) what is its purpose?  What does it add?  This is a different but redundant approach.  Is it necessary?...
18:53:29 <hknublau> q+
18:54:12 <hsolbrig> ... (2) any time you add something, you have to verify that it is correct and support it -- you can't really say "if this is wrong"...  what is the intended use?
18:54:23 <ericP> q+
18:54:36 <hsolbrig> ... note that questions don't apply to non-normative.
18:55:23 <hsolbrig> arnaud:  the "if this is wrong" is only as a last resort.  It is done in many specs.
18:55:37 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:56:16 <hsolbrig> hnkublau: open to having this as a separate document.  Role overlaps with textual definitions that we already have....
18:56:53 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:56:54 <hsolbrig> ... SPARQL gives executable definition, and we get SPARQL testing for free.
18:57:54 <hsolbrig> ericP:  verification of syntax is fairly trivial in a language such as Scala.  Pretty easy to do machine verification.
18:58:04 <hsolbrig> arnaud: Has Iovka looked at this?
18:58:12 <hsolbrig> EricP:  Yes - she liked it
18:58:31 <AndyS> q+
18:58:40 <Arnaud> ack AndyS
18:58:50 <hsolbrig> q+ to say I have to leave and someone needs to scribe.
19:00:50 <hknublau> scribenick: hknublau
19:01:22 <kcoyle> q+
19:01:29 <Arnaud> ack hsolbrig
19:01:29 <Zakim> hsolbrig, you wanted to say I have to leave and someone needs to scribe.
19:01:31 <hknublau> AndyS: There is a cost of keeping normative definitions in synch
19:01:51 <hknublau> ... in SPARQL the Algebra is normative
19:01:56 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:02:27 <hknublau> kcoyle: In DCMI community we had problems with $ variables and binding
19:03:06 <hknublau> ... Would using an Abstract Syntax reduce the need for the SPARQL?
19:03:15 <hknublau> EricP: Yes IHMO
19:04:48 <Dimitris> q+
19:05:01 <hknublau> AndyS: We would have to try. Abstract Syntax would become yet another language.
19:05:50 <hknublau> Arnaud: We had long discussions on this topic in the early days of the WG. Some people were suggesting an Abstract Syntax then already.
19:06:16 <hknublau> ... ISSUE-52 was opened as a compromise to accommodate that view point.
19:07:30 <hknublau> ... We have a resolution to use SPARQL "as much as possible".
19:07:38 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:08:08 <hknublau> Dimitris: Replacing SPARQL with another language would not solve Karen's problem
19:08:15 <hknublau> ... One option would be to hide SPARQL by default
19:08:32 <simonstey> +q
19:08:47 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
19:08:54 <hknublau> Arnaud: Or have Abstract Syntax as an optional view
19:09:38 <hknublau> simonstey: Abstract Syntax would have made more sense in the beginning, and we could have used SPARQL as one example
19:09:51 <hknublau> ... but changing everything now (at this stage) may not be the best way forward
19:10:30 <hknublau> Arnaud: The same old positions are resurfacing. Jose is not even present.
19:11:30 <hknublau> ... at least agreement that we should publish this informally, but I see no agreement on more
19:12:48 <hknublau> EricP: Yes I can prepare it as an Appendix working draft.
19:14:34 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Put Eric's proposed abstract syntax into a Working Draft (Editor's draft)
19:15:06 <ericP> +1
19:15:06 <simonstey> +1
19:15:09 <jamsden> +1
19:15:09 <hknublau> 0
19:15:13 <TallTed> +1
19:15:15 <kcoyle> +1
19:15:22 <AndyS> +1 to at least publish as a note/informative/other -- ideally with evaluation semantics as well
19:15:29 <Dimitris> +1
19:17:02 <hknublau> Arnaud: Should we close the ticket now?
19:17:10 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-52, put Eric's proposed abstract syntax into a Working Draft (Editor's draft)
19:17:47 <hknublau> topic: ISSUE-139
19:17:47 <trackbot> issue-139 -- Can all constraint properties be applied in all scenarios? -- open
19:17:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/139
19:18:20 <hknublau> Arnaud: What is left to decide here?
19:19:36 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html#item05
19:19:48 <kcoyle> time for another editpr
19:19:56 <ericP> q+
19:19:57 <kcoyle> editor's draft?
19:20:03 <Dimitris> q+
19:20:04 <ericP> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#h-constraints
19:20:04 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:20:13 <hknublau> From my perspective the language is good now.
19:20:51 <hknublau> ericP: The table is still there
19:21:29 <hknublau> ... the language would be slightly more expressive if we allowed everything everywhere/
19:21:47 <hknublau> ... like in ShEx
19:22:35 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:23:24 <hknublau> Dimitris: Two questions: a) can they all apply everywhere b) how to implement this, e.g. using the extension mechanism
19:23:32 <hknublau> q+
19:24:20 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:24:25 <hknublau> On Value Nodes "forEach": - sh:and/sh:or/sh:not - sh:class/sh:classIn - sh:datatype/sh:datatypeIn - sh:in - sh:maxInclusive/sh:minExclusive etc - sh:maxLength/sh:minLength - sh:nodeKind - sh:pattern - sh:shape - sh:stem   -> Just a single (ASK) validator needed  On Property Pairs: - sh:disjoint/sh:equals - sh:lessThan/sh:lessThanOrEquals   -> Just a single SELECT validator needed (property constraints)  On Sets of Value Nodes: - sh:maxCount/sh:minCount [CUT]
19:25:28 <ericP> http://piratepad.net/Oj8vDGHONz
19:29:23 <hknublau> hknublau: Discussion based on the pirate pad
19:30:02 <hknublau> ... I don't think there is value in allowing every constraint component everywhere, because many components do not make sense as property/node constraints
19:30:29 <hknublau> ericP: Kind of agreement
19:30:39 <kcoyle> Holger, can you put that also in an email? thx
19:30:59 <TallTed> q+
19:31:10 <hknublau> Dimitris: Agree in principle, issue with error reporting
19:31:12 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
19:31:32 <hknublau> TellTed: Question is who are we making life simpler for, and how much simpler does it become?
19:31:54 <hknublau> Arnaud: People have different view points
19:32:34 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:32:34 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:32:34 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, simonstey, AndyS, kcoyle, jamsden, hknublau, TallTed, pano, Dimitris, hsolbrig, ericP
19:32:42 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:32:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:32:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:32:43 <RRSAgent> I see no action items