12:59:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:59:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-shapes-irc
12:59:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:59:53 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
12:59:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:59:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
12:59:56 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:59:56 <trackbot> Date: 04 October 2016
13:00:05 <Arnaud> Arnaud 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:Telecon2016.10.04 ...Webex got a late invite; please reload...
13:04:41 <Arnaud> present+
13:04:52 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.10.04
13:04:53 <simonstey> present+
13:04:55 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
<Arnaud> regrets: andyS, pano, hknublau
13:05:22 <Dimitris> present+
13:05:31 <Dimitris> scribenick: dimitris
13:07:00 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #shapes
13:07:06 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
13:08:44 <TallTed> present+
13:09:09 <Labra> present+
<Dimitris> topic: Admin
13:10:25 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 27 Sept 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html
13:11:19 <simonstey> +1
13:12:37 <Labra> +1
13:12:40 <kcoyle> +1
13:12:45 <Dimitris> Arnaud: There were some comments that some issues from last week might have been accidently closed
13:13:10 <TallTed> +0
13:13:33 <Arnaud> s/accidently closed/closed not knowing that they were not editorial/
13:17:05 <Dimitris> ... this is a chance to speak if you agree with those comments
13:18:05 <simonstey> +q
13:18:55 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
13:23:23 <Dimitris> +1, I was not in the call but agree with the resolution
13:23:38 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 27 Sept 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html
13:23:57 <Dimitris> topic: Public comments
13:25:06 <Dimitris> arnaud: Once we close all the issues we can go to the implementation stage but there was a last call step that is now removed
13:26:13 <Dimitris> ... we record public comments, we address and show to the commenter and ask if the response is acceptable
13:26:35 <Dimitris> ... we do not have to do this at this point, we are not in CR
13:26:59 <Dimitris> ... this is from a W3C process point of view
13:29:43 <Dimitris> ... if there is disagreement for some comments it goes to the director who has the final say
13:30:45 <simonstey> +q
13:30:54 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
13:30:58 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#doc-reviews
13:31:57 <Dimitris> simonstey: according to the new process document the document is available for  review and comments as soon as it is published
13:33:01 <Dimitris> arnaud: this is a SHOULD but it is in our interested as we already said to address all public comments
13:34:58 <Dimitris> TallTed: the wiki page would look better as a table, at least for summary
13:35:00 <Arnaud> Here is an example we could follow: https://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments
<Dimitris> kcoyle: I can do something like that
13:38:56 <Dimitris> Arnaud: Dimitris raised some issues that need WG approval and I encourage everyone to do that
13:39:44 <Dimitris> topic: Disposal of raised issues
13:39:53 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-180, ISSUE-182, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-184, ISSUE-185
13:40:51 <Dimitris> Arnaud: issue 182 is marked as editorial but looks like it is not
13:41:34 <Dimitris> Kcoyle: indeed, let's mark is a non-editorial issue
13:41:46 <TallTed> +1 open all
13:41:56 <simonstey> +1
13:42:00 <kcoyle> +1
13:42:01 <Dimitris> +1
13:42:06 <Labra> +1
13:42:15 <Dimitris> s/mark is/mark it
13:42:48 <Arnaud> s/ISSUE-180/ISSUE-180, ISSUE-181/
13:43:11 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-180, ISSUE-181, ISSUE-182, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-184, ISSUE-185
13:44:26 <simonstey> +q
13:44:30 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
13:45:22 <Dimitris> topic: ISSUE-22 - recursion
13:45:22 <simonstey> issue-22
13:45:22 <trackbot> issue-22 -- Treatment of recursive shape definitions -- closed
13:45:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/22
13:46:12 <Dimitris> simonstey: what does indirectly mean here?
13:46:18 <Dimitris> q+
13:46:45 <Dimitris> I changed a bit the wording here: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes-recursion
13:47:21 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
13:48:15 <Dimitris> Dimitris I changed a bit the wording to "A recursive shape is a shape that its constraints refers to the shape directly or transitively via..."
13:49:32 <kcoyle> q+
13:50:28 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
13:51:05 <Dimitris> kcoyle: Do we have error checking in SHACL in general?
13:51:34 <TallTed> Maybe "A recursive shape is a shape that its constraints refers to the shape directly or transitively ..." -> "A recursive shape is has constraints refers to itself ..."  The CYA is the last sentence -- "The handling of recursive shapes is not defined in SHACL and is left to SHACL processor implementations."
13:51:57 <Dimitris> q+
13:52:18 <Dimitris> TallTed: what is the current status?
13:52:34 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
13:53:44 <Labra> +1 for the new wording
13:55:32 <Dimitris> Dimitris: I removed the failure from the spec, since it is undefined anyway
13:57:15 <Labra> q+
13:59:01 <Arnaud> ack Labra
14:00:02 <Dimitris> Labra: I like the new wording, I like keeping it undefined to support ShEx use cases
14:02:14 <Dimitris> TallTed: There are 3 proposals, the previous PWD, the ED and the proposal from the email
14:03:02 <Dimitris> q+
14:03:34 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
14:07:03 <Dimitris> Dimitris: I made this proposal to try and close a hole in the spec but if people want to leave it like this is ok for me
14:07:30 <Dimitris> TallTed: leaving it undefined requires less effort
14:10:07 <Labra> q+
14:10:11 <Arnaud> ack Labra
14:11:06 <Dimitris> Arnaud: the issue is already closed and there is not much incentive to change it
14:12:52 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Retain the current Editor's Draft wording (modulo language cleanup) of "3.1.1 Recursive shapes", and table ISSUE-22 to whatever extent it is related
14:13:15 <Dimitris> Dimitris: Since there is no strong support I withdraw the proposal
14:13:33 <Dimitris> +1
14:13:34 <simonstey> +1
14:13:37 <TallTed> +1
14:13:37 <Labra> +0.5
14:13:37 <kcoyle> +0
14:14:13 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Retain the current Editor's Draft wording (modulo language cleanup) of "3.1.1 Recursive shapes", and table ISSUE-22 to whatever extent it is related
14:15:03 <Dimitris> topic: Filters and focus nodes
14:15:28 <Dimitris> Kcoyle: we have targets, filters constraints and something called focus nodes
14:16:44 <Dimitris> ... the final node on which a constraint operates is called a focus node, also the focus node constraints
14:16:58 <Dimitris> ... focus is happening in multiple places and I am confused
14:17:34 <Dimitris> Arnaud: there is a recursive definition that seems editorial
14:27:10 <Dimitris> (discussing about details on focus nodes)
14:38:01 <Dimitris> summary , DImitris will change the draft and define better the term focus node, Karen will approve his changes
14:39:13 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
14:39:13 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:39:13 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, simonstey, Dimitris, TallTed, Labra, kcoyle
14:39:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:39:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
14:39:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:39:22 <RRSAgent> I see no action items