See also: IRC log
<kcoyle> hmmm. not getting audio on webex - anyone else having this problem?
<simonstey> me neither
<Arnaud> same here
<Arnaud> let's hope Eric shows up
<pano> same here
<Arnaud> "Thanks for using WebEx." or not...
<simonstey> "how do you rate your experience?"
<kcoyle> Not, I think, Arnaud, definitely not
<Dimitris> cannot enter by phone either
<Arnaud> eric is working on it
<Arnaud> hand in there
<Arnaud> oh my...
<Arnaud> "This is intermission is brought to you by WebEx."...
<Arnaud> eric is still working
<Arnaud> at least that's what he says ;-)
<Arnaud> I do have a telephone bridge we could use but it doesn't support VOIP
"WebEx helps you meet online with anyone, anywhere, so you can get more done—faster and cost-effectively." by not having those time consuming meetings after all...
<Arnaud> can everybody call on a phone?
<Arnaud> I can provide you with a local number
<kcoyle> phone ok, but i'm local, thus np
<pano> if it is a local number would be possible for me
<Dimitris> I can as well with skype
<simonstey> same for me
<simonstey> if it's a toll free number
<Arnaud> according to eric, it should work now
<scribe> scribenick: TallTed
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 4 August 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/04-shapes-minutes.html
<kcoyle> minutes look ok - i looked
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 4 August 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/04-shapes-minutes.html
Arnaud: internal WG review is requested of Abstract Syntax Draft (http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-abstract-syntax/) and SHACL Draft (http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/) for PWD in TR space
kcoyle: [in favor]
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish latest editor's draft of SHACL
Dimitris: good shape for PWD
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say propose that the current hasShape have an issue saying "this is intended to be in shacl core"
ericP: [garbled audio echoing q request]
<AndyS> (links to major issues are also good ... realistically, feedback is a bonus)
<Dimitris> \me Eric, can you write this down? I cannot understand
<Arnaud> ericp, are you objecting to the publication?
<ericP> i had expected that the functionality of sh:hasShape to be in core. can we have issue text to say that?
ericP: i had expected that the functionality of sh:hasShape to be in core. can we have issue text within the draft to say that?
<Arnaud> I lost audio
Dimitris: maybe what you need is resolution of issue-140 ?
ericP: I'm looking for some context-sensitive validation...
<Arnaud> guys, we're completely off topic
<Dimitris> part of issue-140 : ""Optionally, an individual node can be used as additional parameter to the validation process, resulting in validation of that node only."
<Dimitris> Eric, have a closer look at issue 140 in case it covers this issue before opening a new one
RESOLUTION: Publish latest editor's draft of SHACL
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish Abstract syntax draft as First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
RESOLUTION: Publish Abstract syntax draft as First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
<ericP> LC was basically telling i18n and wai that it was time to poke holes in the spec
<AndyS> """ A Candidate Recommendation corresponds to a "Last Call Working Draft" [as it was]"""
Arnaud: w3c process has a milestone of "Candidate Recommendation" (overlaps with some of what was once "Last Call"), with some specific requirements...
... [reviews requirements]
marqh: what implementations are we aware of? or groups or individuals working on such?
<AndyS> How current is https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite ?
<ericP> SPARQL implementation report
<ericP> ShEx validation tests
<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about post-WG community
<ericP> +1 to AndyS's point
AndyS: companies often want to get listed on compliance/implementation reports after PR
<trackbot> issue-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- open
Dimitris: rough concurrence with Holger's concern; need to read more carefully
kcoyle: it would be helpful to know how this could be handled with SHACL today, vs Eric's proposal
... i.e., without sh:partition
Arnaud: we've discussed this a few times, without significant motion, and clear disagreement. how can we move forward?
<trackbot> issue-150 -- Treatment of nested severities -- open
<Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: treat sh:Warning and sh:Info as violations like sh:Violation a) yes, b) no (status quo)
<Dimitris> a) +1 b) -0.9
<kcoyle> a) +1 b) 0
<ericP> a) +1 b) 0
<simonstey> a) +1 b) 0
a +1 b -0.9
<ericP> +1 to Dimitris's approach
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting