IRC log of shapes on 2016-07-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:01:33 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:01:33 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-shapes-irc
18:01:35 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:01:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
18:01:37 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:01:37 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
18:01:38 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:01:38 [trackbot]
Date: 21 July 2016
18:03:16 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
18:03:39 [kcoyle]
present+
18:04:15 [pano]
present+
18:05:12 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.07.21
18:05:19 [jamsden]
jamsden has joined #shapes
18:05:23 [Arnaud]
present+
18:07:24 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
18:07:48 [TallTed]
present+
18:08:21 [hknublau]
present+
18:08:26 [Arnaud]
regrets: andys
18:08:56 [Dimitris]
cannot enter the call with webex
18:09:03 [Dimitris]
the application keeps crashing
18:09:47 [ericP]
linux?
18:10:10 [Dimitris]
android, linux doesnt work anyway :)
18:10:22 [ericP]
yeah, codec prob
18:13:59 [kcoyle]
scribenick: kcoyle
18:14:19 [kcoyle]
topic:ADMIN
18:14:26 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 14 July 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-shapes-minutes.html
18:14:34 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:14:46 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 14 July 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-shapes-minutes.html
18:15:54 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: Comment on public list about "scope"
18:16:29 [kcoyle]
... thanks to Dimitris for responding
18:17:02 [kcoyle]
... do we have an answer other than Dimitris'?
18:17:05 [hknublau]
q+
18:17:06 [Dimitris]
q+
18:17:12 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:17:55 [kcoyle]
hknublau: Sympathizes - scope is overloaded; suggest trigger, because place to start
18:17:58 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
18:18:14 [ericP]
+1 to select
18:18:23 [kcoyle]
Dimitris: select or collect - nodes that are selected, e.g.
18:18:30 [ericP]
q+
18:18:42 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
18:18:45 [ericP]
selectification
18:19:27 [kcoyle]
ericP: One issue is that spec uses this as the only way to select nodes - e.g. CSS selectors
18:20:17 [Dimitris]
q+
18:20:23 [kcoyle]
... could be like API to select nodes
18:20:36 [Dimitris]
q-
18:21:16 [hknublau]
sh:selectorClass, sh:selectorNode, sh:selectorObjectsOf, sh:selectedSubjectsOf
18:21:26 [Arnaud]
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes
18:21:27 [kcoyle]
kcoyle: "selector" comes from a different angle
18:22:09 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: illustration explains steps "scopes are used to select focus nodes" - define focus with a scope
18:22:38 [kcoyle]
q+
18:22:40 [TallTed]
maybe just "in focus" instead of "in scope"? sh:focusClass, sh:focusNode, sh:focusObjectsOf, sh:focusSubjectsOf
18:22:43 [Arnaud]
sck kcoyle
18:22:47 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:23:31 [hknublau]
@TallTed focus node already has a different meaning, at runtime.
18:23:43 [kcoyle]
kcoyle: had questioned "in scope" - which Dimitris has now removed
18:24:07 [TallTed]
@hknublau - true...
18:24:23 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: "Selector" and "selected" seem to work in the text
18:24:33 [hknublau]
q+
18:24:40 [ericP]
+1 to fixing
18:24:42 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:24:43 [Dimitris]
q+
18:25:20 [kcoyle]
hknublau: we could respond that we are open to hearing suggestions; could create a ticket or wiki page where we talk about names
18:25:38 [kcoyle]
... requires more thought
18:25:40 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
18:26:26 [kcoyle]
Dimitris: select selectNode, selectObjectOf, etc.
18:26:39 [hknublau]
This would benefit from being written down on a wiki page.
18:27:35 [Dimitris]
e.g. selectNodes, selectInstancesOf, selectObjectsOf, selectSubjectsOf
18:27:43 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: asks Dimitris to answer / follow-up
18:28:10 [kcoyle]
... Dimitris to create wiki page and refer to it in email
18:29:39 [kcoyle]
TOPIC: Core SHACL Abstract Syntax
18:29:41 [kcoyle]
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-abstract-syntax/
18:31:39 [kcoyle]
ericP: Document is ok for a fpwd; has simplified view
18:32:51 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: (make this more obvious at the top of the document)
18:33:22 [kcoyle]
ericP: potentially out of scope as per use of path instead of inverse property scope
18:33:35 [kcoyle]
... does not have qualified cardinality restriction
18:33:53 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: needs references
18:33:55 [Dimitris]
q+
18:34:32 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
18:34:49 [kcoyle]
Dimitris: also inverse property constraint, which is removed
18:35:27 [kcoyle]
q+
18:36:16 [hknublau]
q+
18:36:21 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:37:09 [kcoyle]
Needs to coordinate with PWD of SHACL
18:37:16 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:38:15 [kcoyle]
hknublau: overlaps with what we already have; current document is more precise; there can be mis-matches
18:38:23 [TallTed]
q+
18:38:41 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: every new document is additional workload; but we decided to have an abstract syntax
18:39:07 [kcoyle]
... add a disclaimer that this is a complementary document to SHACL spec
18:39:21 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
18:40:06 [Dimitris]
in the status it writes "This is a Working Draft. It is not decided whether this will be a WG Note or a WG Recommendation."
18:40:08 [kcoyle]
TallTed: 1) not yet decided if this is note, recommendation, appendix... non-normative. should be in the abstract. this is an AS drawn from core document
18:40:08 [Dimitris]
18:40:55 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: add that this is derived from SHACL
18:41:49 [kcoyle]
TallTed: should be 'non-normative" -
18:42:03 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: Note is non-normative by definition
18:42:33 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: Eric will address this
18:43:19 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: Do we need to republish SHACL? What changes have been done?
18:43:39 [hknublau]
q+
18:43:43 [Dimitris]
q+
18:44:45 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:44:45 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: maybe publish both at the same time
18:45:23 [Arnaud]
you guys don't have any noise anymore?
18:45:29 [Arnaud]
because I do!
18:45:38 [kcoyle]
hknublau: there are 2 more big syntax changes in the pipeline before republish
18:45:38 [Dimitris]
q-
18:45:49 [kcoyle]
no, we don't hear it anymore, so it's you
18:46:05 [Dimitris]
Agree with Holger
18:47:37 [ericP]
[[ This Working Draft is an alternate representation of the SHACL specification. It is not decided whether this will be a WG Note, a WG Recommendation, or an appendix of the SHACL specification. ]]
18:48:45 [kcoyle]
topic: ISSUE-133
18:49:07 [hknublau]
q+
18:49:12 [kcoyle]
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-133:_syntax
18:49:16 [hknublau]
q-
18:50:28 [kcoyle]
q+
18:50:39 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:53:56 [hknublau]
q+
18:54:19 [kcoyle]
kcoyle: does anyone else have examples? this would be used with flat data
18:54:55 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:55:21 [kcoyle]
hknublau: merging node constraint and shape
18:56:48 [kcoyle]
... just Topic 4 for now
18:57:17 [kcoyle]
q+
18:57:29 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:58:51 [Dimitris]
q+
18:58:57 [ericP]
q+ to ask how i recognize an unknown "parameter" from an annotation property on the shape
18:59:03 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
18:59:10 [kcoyle]
kcoyle: what happens to non-sh comments in code?
18:59:34 [kcoyle]
Dimitris: shacl allows other properties; doesn't make a different
18:59:41 [kcoyle]
s/different/difference
19:00:14 [kcoyle]
... you can have other properties
19:00:14 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
19:00:14 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to ask how i recognize an unknown "parameter" from an annotation property on the shape
19:00:42 [kcoyle]
ericP: challenge is that because you don't forbid additional properties you don't know a new parameter from an annotation property
19:01:14 [kcoyle]
... there are 3-4 things attached to a shape right now; but there are ~20 on a node constraint
19:02:07 [kcoyle]
... hard to know which things you need to pay attention to
19:02:31 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: also things like typos in the name - can warn about what is recognized
19:02:55 [hknublau]
I don't think this is much different whether we merge the two or not.
19:03:17 [TallTed]
q+q?
19:03:27 [TallTed]
ack q?
19:04:18 [kcoyle]
TallTed: 4 alternatives in this section, but only discussing 4a
19:05:03 [kcoyle]
hknublau: these four are not either/or - they all could be done (4a-4d)
19:05:27 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-133
19:06:19 [jamsden]
q+
19:06:30 [Arnaud]
ack jamsden
19:07:02 [kcoyle]
jamsden: relating to OSLC resource shapes: a graph has nodes and edges; edges are properties
19:07:18 [kcoyle]
... you would think that constraints would follow that - node and property constraints
19:07:56 [kcoyle]
... how do they relate to each other? nodes and edges are organized by nodes and edges - what is the shape in this?
19:08:09 [kcoyle]
... it looks like shape also plays a role to constrain a node
19:08:10 [hknublau]
q+
19:08:35 [kcoyle]
hknublau: they do overlap, and that's one of the reasons to merge them - they both can have filter shapes
19:08:47 [kcoyle]
... a property constraint also starts at the node
19:09:06 [kcoyle]
... so it is easier to merge them
19:09:43 [kcoyle]
jamsden: thinking the same way, once concepts are covered, graph can contain node and property constraints; don't need something different for that
19:09:45 [TallTed]
q+
19:10:16 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:10:17 [kcoyle]
... all we need is graph as a container, a scoping mechanism, a node constraint, and a property constraint, to be combined with and/or/not
19:10:31 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
19:11:19 [kcoyle]
TallTed: looking at Wiki issue-133 page. Q: remove sh:constraint? but not obvious what else might be paralle to sh:constraint
19:11:41 [kcoyle]
... removing that container means that things in it become parallel to other things - what are those things?
19:12:15 [kcoyle]
hknublau: only other thing that shape defines is scopes (in SHACL)
19:13:01 [kcoyle]
TallTed: what other attributes might be applied to sh:closedShape that might cause a duplication because applies to node
19:13:31 [kcoyle]
hknublau: replace sh:constraint with sh:shape - can still use sh:shape in other places
19:14:11 [kcoyle]
TallTed: need to make the optionality clear
19:14:21 [kcoyle]
hknublau: e.g. constraints with different severities
19:14:45 [ericP]
q+
19:15:25 [Dimitris]
q+
19:15:31 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: we started with shapes, node constraints, property constraints - has a certain symmetry
19:15:32 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
19:16:04 [kcoyle]
ericP: a parllel between what is in a pth constraint and what is in a node constraint; if we merge node & shape, we save one triple
19:16:39 [kcoyle]
... and we mix models : shape has paths, and we mix with node constraints in one bag
19:16:51 [kcoyle]
.... could be harder both for users and implementers
19:17:05 [kcoyle]
... most cost than value
19:17:14 [Dimitris]
q+
19:18:17 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
19:19:12 [kcoyle]
Dimitris: agree with eric to says that shapes have scope and that contains constraints - although this is a syntax simplification, but I prefer not to do this
19:19:23 [jamsden]
q+
19:19:29 [Arnaud]
ack jamsden
19:19:54 [kcoyle]
jamsden: property graphs are become popular for managing persistent data;
19:20:34 [kcoyle]
... graphs with nodes and edges; if we have a graph of data and graph of constrains, and both have nodes and edges
19:20:52 [hknublau]
q+
19:20:53 [kcoyle]
... this might allow use of shacl in graph databases
19:21:02 [Arnaud]
STRAWPOLL: a) merge Shape and NodeConstraint, b) don't merge Shape and NodeConstraint
19:21:15 [hknublau]
a: +1 b: 0
19:21:22 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:21:27 [jamsden]
a: +1, b: 0
19:21:29 [TallTed]
a +1 b -0.5
19:21:33 [ericP]
a: -.5, b: .5
19:21:40 [kcoyle]
a) -.5 b) +1
19:21:47 [Dimitris]
a) -0 b) +1
19:22:12 [pano]
a: +1 b: 0
19:22:42 [kcoyle]
4,2
19:23:24 [kcoyle]
TOPIC: Issue-139
19:25:02 [kcoyle]
hknublau: keep extension mechanism as currently specified; but drop sh:context
19:26:07 [kcoyle]
Dimitris: proposal ok, with a minor change; ok to leave extension mechanism as is
19:26:42 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: do folks understand this compromise? (silence)
19:27:03 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-139, adopt Holger's compromise proposal https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jul/0062.html
19:27:48 [Dimitris]
+1
19:27:49 [TallTed]
+1
19:27:50 [kcoyle]
0
19:27:55 [hknublau]
-0.9
19:27:56 [jamsden]
+0
19:28:24 [pano]
0
19:30:14 [kcoyle]
ericP: justification may not be accurate.... in 2nd paragraph of text of 139
19:30:17 [TallTed]
issue-139?
19:30:17 [trackbot]
issue-139 -- Can all constraint properties be applied in all scenarios? -- open
19:30:17 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/139
19:31:28 [kcoyle]
Dimitris: compromise is that we have universal applicability; with compromise on sparql extension, where it can be defined without universal applicability
19:32:12 [kcoyle]
... universal applicability but you can have more than one sparql query
19:32:42 [ericP]
19:32:58 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-139, adopt Holger's compromise proposal https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jul/0062.html
19:34:03 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:34:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:34:03 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been kcoyle, pano, Arnaud, TallTed, hknublau, vote, ε
19:34:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:34:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:34:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:34:12 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
19:34:14 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has left #shapes