12:58:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:58:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-irc
12:58:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:58:03 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
12:58:05 <kcoyle> doesn't for me - says too early to log on
12:58:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:58:05 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
12:58:06 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:58:06 <trackbot> Date: 27 September 2016
12:58:07 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #shapes
13:00:01 <TallTed> Webex thinks the call is tomorrow...
13:00:08 <Arnaud> yes, hold on a minute
13:00:12 <Arnaud> eric is working on it
13:00:19 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
13:00:28 <marqh> marqh has joined #shapes
13:00:51 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Shapes WG: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes Next agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.09.27 -- ...Webex is being updated...
13:01:45 <kcoyle> webex works now
13:02:11 <Arnaud> yes, you may need to refresh the page to get access
13:03:35 <hknublau> present+
13:03:40 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Shapes WG: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes Next agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.09.27 ...Webex got a late invite; please reload...
13:04:10 <marqh> present+
13:04:42 <pano> pano has joined #shapes
13:04:45 <simonstey> present+
13:05:55 <kcoyle> present+
13:06:07 <pano> present+
13:06:31 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
13:06:42 <Arnaud> sorry, struggling with audio (again)
13:06:48 <hsolbrig> present+
13:09:36 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #shapes
13:09:47 <marqh> similarly i do too, I am still updating my calendar to free this space regularly
13:10:06 <marqh> ... * pano I have to leave at 10:00 AM eastern time
13:12:23 <hsolbrig> I have to leave at about 9:55 eastern time due to another meeting as well
13:12:26 <Arnaud> present+
<Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
<Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.09.27
<Arnaud> topic: Admin
13:13:58 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 21 Sept 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/21-shapes-minutes.html
13:14:16 <pano> Scribe:pano
13:14:22 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 21 Sept 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/21-shapes-minutes.html
13:15:54 <pano> subtopic: next meetings
13:18:11 <pano> pano: I can't guarantee being there on Tuesdays
13:18:11 <marqh> alternation of day makes attendance more challenging, i'd prefer not to
13:21:01 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: despite the challenges it represents for Pano to attend, we will have our calls on Tuesday
13:21:07 <pano> ... we can do Tuesdays and I'll try to make it as much as possible
13:21:13 <marqh> +1
13:21:15 <ericP> +1
13:21:29 <simonstey> 0 (don't care)
13:21:50 <kcoyle> 0
13:21:58 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: despite the challenges it represents for Pano to attend, we will have our calls on Tuesday
13:22:03 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
13:22:16 <pano> Arnaud: if Jose doesn't call in regularly we will change it back to Wednesday
13:22:39 <pano> topic: Public comments
13:22:58 <Labra> I am starting my connection
13:23:35 <Labra> I had another meeting just before this one
13:24:23 <pano> Arnaud: As we try to get to CR it will be a problem if there are public comments that are left unsatisfied.
13:26:07 <pano> ... we have to keep track of all the comments and the handling and reacting of these to get of CR, and if there are unaddressed comments we will have to issue a new CR
13:27:04 <hsolbrig> q+
13:27:48 <Arnaud> ack hsolbrig
13:28:49 <pano> hsolbrig: With respects to the Peter's comment on precision of the spec, the precision is extremely important and I applaud his push for this.
13:30:33 <pano> topic: Disposal of Raised Issues
13:31:31 <pano> Arnaud: there's one issue that Holger raised, which helps in tackling comments.
13:31:31 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-179
13:31:59 <simonstey> +1
13:32:20 <hknublau> +1
13:32:26 <TallTed> +1
13:32:32 <kcoyle> +1
13:32:35 <Labra> +1
13:32:38 <pano> +1
13:32:39 <hsolbrig> +1
13:32:55 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-179
13:34:08 <pano> topic: ISSUE-163
13:34:37 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-163, as addressed
13:34:40 <pano> Arnaud: There was a message from Holger saying he believes this can be closed now
13:34:41 <hknublau> +1
13:34:47 <simonstey> issue-163
13:34:47 <trackbot> issue-163 -- should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification -- open
13:34:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/163
13:34:54 <kcoyle> +1
13:34:56 <hsolbrig> +0
13:35:02 <simonstey> +1
13:35:08 <TallTed> +1
13:35:12 <pano> +1
13:35:14 <ericP> +0
13:35:14 <marqh> +1
13:35:16 <Labra> +1
13:35:45 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-163, as addressed
13:36:01 <pano> topic: ISSUE-106: annotation properties
13:36:17 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed by this change: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/da0f0fbdc4...8e8401ab9d
13:36:43 <pano> Arnaud: again, Holger indicated that this issue has been resolved
13:36:51 <simonstey> +1
13:36:56 <hknublau> +1
13:36:58 <kcoyle> +0
13:37:07 <TallTed> +1
13:37:21 <pano> +1
13:37:35 <Labra> 0
13:37:40 <hsolbrig> +0
13:37:42 <ericP> 0
13:37:57 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed by this change: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/da0f0fbdc4...8e8401ab9d
13:38:10 <pano> topic: ISSUE-107: annotations v. arguments
13:38:30 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently specified
13:38:49 <simonstey> issue-107
13:38:49 <trackbot> issue-107 -- annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name -- open
13:38:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/107
13:39:09 <hknublau> +1
13:39:21 <pano> Arnaud: there was some discussion on this one
13:39:35 <kcoyle> +0
13:39:45 <TallTed> +0
13:39:47 <hsolbrig> +0
13:39:51 <pano> +0
13:39:55 <simonstey> 0
13:40:14 <Labra> 0
13:40:18 <ericP> q+ to ask if errors are an annotation
13:40:56 <Arnaud> ack ericP
13:40:56 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if errors are an annotation
13:41:38 <pano> ericP: it seems like errors messages are annotations, in the sense that they dont have semantic impact. Am I right here?
13:42:34 <ericP> 0
13:42:53 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently specified
13:43:12 <pano> hknublau: Yes, they are. They are a very small part though, and I don't see a problem.
13:43:38 <pano> topic: ISSUE-142: loose terminology
13:44:18 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and its use throughout the document.
13:44:20 <pano> Arnaud: Peter has expressed concerns about closing this issue.
13:45:18 <hknublau> +1
13:45:33 <hsolbrig> +q
13:45:44 <hsolbrig> q-
13:45:47 <Arnaud> ack hsolbrig
13:45:54 <pano> ericP: this issue isn't a very helpful one
13:46:09 <marqh> q+
13:46:16 <simonstey> +1
13:46:19 <Arnaud> ack marqh
13:46:19 <hsolbrig> +1
13:46:36 <pano> hsolbrig: I agree. There are some loose terminology issues in the spec, but there should be clear issues for these.
13:48:13 <pano> marqh: there are some worthwile parts in this issue that could be seperated out as separate issues that can be discussed more productively
13:48:34 <pano> ... I'm happy to try and do that in the coming week
13:49:43 <hknublau> q+
13:49:56 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
13:50:32 <kcoyle> q+
13:52:22 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
13:53:28 <pano> kcoyle: It is difficult to explain that something is unclear. One of the useful things we could do is do a group read through of the spec, talking about and working through parts that are unclear.
13:53:44 <pano> ... It would be nice to have that as a discussion.
13:53:53 <pano> Arnaud:
13:55:04 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and its use throughout the document, separate issues should be raised against specific terminology issues
13:55:26 <kcoyle> +1
13:55:30 <hsolbrig> +1
13:55:41 <hsolbrig> Apologies - have to leave for a 10:00 meeitng.  Thnx
13:55:55 <pano> +1
13:56:49 <pano> ... That's interesting idea. I can only propose dicussing these on email currently.
13:57:09 <ericP> +1
13:57:13 <Arnaud> ACTION: marqh to take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed
13:57:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed [on Mark Hedley - due 2016-10-04].
13:59:02 <TallTed> q+
<Labra> scribe: labra
13:59:17 <Labra> topic: ISSUE-140: Validate individual nodes
13:59:17 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
13:59:23 <Arnaud> issue-140
13:59:24 <trackbot> issue-140 -- SHACL needs to support validation of individual nodes -- open
13:59:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/140
13:59:36 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-140 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/2046305962be7cd47400e7a2b51cd2841dca398c
13:59:37 <Labra> TallTed: It's extremely vague
13:59:49 <Labra> ...every implementation can handle it differently
13:59:51 <ericP> q+ to say there's some value to APIs
14:00:13 <Labra> Holger: Do people agree that we need to support this?
14:00:27 <Labra> ...maybe it is an optional feature and we don't need to support this
14:01:07 <Labra> ...we have already defined for a node what it is to be validated
14:01:23 <Labra> ...it is similar to the hasShape function
14:01:45 <Arnaud> ack ericP
14:01:45 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say there's some value to APIs
14:02:12 <Labra> Eric: XML Schema gives a couple of ways on how to associate a document with a schema
14:02:19 <Labra> ...it is a well go to go
14:02:35 <Labra> ...here is a node in a graph and a shape in a schema and check if it matches
14:03:37 <Labra> ...the most important thing is to say this is how we validate a node in a graph...instead of using selectors
14:04:05 <Labra> Arnaud: Do you agree with Ted?
14:04:45 <Labra> Eric: Yes, in the abstract syntax and semantics the examples define shapes and instance data except in the section about selectors
14:05:25 <Labra> Holger: The input basically is a data graph and a shapes graph
14:06:01 <Labra> Eric: in the examples in the abstract syntax and semantics the notion of validation take a node in a graph and a shape in a schema
14:06:14 <Labra> ...it is very simple to follow that
14:06:35 <Labra> Holger: But the difference is that we don't know the shape, only the node
14:07:19 <Labra> EricP: validation is a function that takes a shape in a schema and a node in agraph, then the exampels can be formulated in top of that
14:07:44 <Labra> Holger: We have already defined what it means for a node to be validated in a shapes graph...it luuks for all the shapes
14:07:56 <Labra> s/luuks/looks/
14:08:50 <Labra> Ted: It seems that we are realizing that there are three inputs, a graph, a shapes graph and a node
14:09:53 <Labra> Arnaud: there is not going to be a consensus on this at this point
14:11:12 <Labra> Holger: this should be something that implementations can define one way or another
14:11:53 <Arnaud> topic: ISSUE-155
14:11:53 <trackbot> issue-155 -- problems in the description of property pair constraints -- open
14:11:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/155
14:11:56 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-155 as handled by the current draft.
14:12:02 <hknublau> +1
14:12:47 <simonstey> +.5
14:13:09 <ericP> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-abstract-syntax/#Comparisonwithcompareproperty defines a semantics for arbitrary numbers of triples
14:14:08 <Labra> In that example you can see that there are lots of permutations that we cover
14:14:35 <kcoyle> q+
14:14:45 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
14:15:16 <Labra> kcoyle: I would need an explanation from Holger about why Peter's comments are valid or don't need to be addressed
14:15:24 <simonstey> this issue was raised back in april
14:15:42 <Labra> ...Holger says I don't see it as a problem...can you explain that?
14:16:19 <Labra> Holger: the issue has been raised in april and there has been a lot of work that has solved these issues
14:16:51 <Labra> ...the person who raised this issue is no longer in the WG and nobody else is complaining
14:17:33 <Labra> Arnaud: Peter didn't complain after taking a look at the agenda also, but we don't know
14:18:10 <Labra> ...if nobody is going to champion the issue, maybe we can just close it optimistically
14:18:21 <Labra> ...and we can reopen it later
14:18:38 <kcoyle> +.5
14:18:41 <ericP> 0
14:18:44 <TallTed> +0
14:18:46 <Labra> 0
14:18:52 <simonstey> I would argue that at least some parts of the issue were already addressed
14:19:08 <simonstey> e.g., we dont have inversepropconstraints anymore
14:19:15 <simonstey> +1
14:19:39 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-155 as handled by the current draft
<Arnaud> topic: Test Suite
14:25:20 <Labra> Arnaud: There is some work translating from ShEx testsuite to SHACL
14:26:48 <Labra> Labra: I am working on it...and I expect to have it in the next 3 weeks or so
14:27:28 <Labra> Labra: one problem is that there are differences in the semantics and also differences in the way that the processors are being called
14:27:36 <Labra> ...but I am working on it
14:28:12 <kcoyle> q+
14:28:18 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
14:28:26 <Arnaud> topic: ISSUE-111
14:28:26 <trackbot> issue-111 -- How should the working group address the issues called out in the WG charter? -- open
14:28:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/111
14:28:51 <Labra> KCoyle: it sounds to me that what he proposes makes sense
14:29:13 <Labra> ...I could try to message this into a fuller introduction for the spec
14:29:45 <Labra> Holger: I appreciate it and if other people answer in the mailing list
14:29:53 <Labra> ...any input is appreciated
14:30:27 <Labra> KCoyle: I will do it in an email
14:31:37 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
14:31:37 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:31:37 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, marqh, simonstey, kcoyle, pano, hsolbrig, Arnaud, ericP, TallTed, Labra
14:31:42 <TallTed> present+
14:31:44 <TallTed> :-/
14:31:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:31:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
14:31:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:31:46 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-actions.rdf :
14:31:46 <RRSAgent> ACTION: marqh to take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed [1]
14:31:46 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-irc#T13-57-13