RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference

<AndyS> scribenick: AndyS

Admin

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 4 Oct 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-shapes-minutes.html

<hknublau> +1

<Dimitris> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 4 Oct 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/04-shapes-minutes.html

next week - Eric to chair.

Public Comments

arnaud: karen reformatted the wiki page

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Comments/September2016/

karen: covers Aug and Sept.
... adding a list of terms that need defining - will create a single issue for them

arnaud: better to be formal in processing comments.
... thank you Karen for doing this work.
... we do not need to satisfy each comment - we need to respond to all comments.
... for answer - proceed with discussion and spec edits.
... try to get a formal response from PFPS.

Disposal of Raised Issues

ISSUE-186, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-188, ISSUE-189

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-186, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-188, ISSUE-189

PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-186, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-188, ISSUE-189

holger: on 189 - seeking clarification

karen: what's an empty graph in this situation?

dimitris: suggest a wrapper with a list of results and the result can be a zero length list.

arnaud: at the moment, seeing if there is an issue to clarify

<TallTed> +1 open issues 186-189

<Dimitris> +1 to open issues

<hknublau> +1

arnaud: need to bring out the knowledge in the implementations

holger: maybe scheduling a face-to-face where WG contributes.

arnaud: maybe several days in a row of several hours each day

<kcoyle> +1

RESOLUTION: Open ISSUE-186, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-188, ISSUE-189

vF2F to dispose of issues and comments

<hknublau> +1 for a 3 days / 4 hours per day.

marqh: would like to contribute to several ... like to structure the sessions so people with some areas not all camn see where to schedule time. e.g. schedule groups of issues.

arnaud: yes - an agenda would be produced.
... we can prioritise issues
... also - async means like the wiki to prepare content

<Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: would you participate in 2 or 3 day virtual f2f - of a 3h or so per day?

<hknublau> +1

+1 where I have a useful contribution

<kcoyle> +1

<Dimitris> +1

<Labra> +1

<marqh> +1

<ericP> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask about upcoming conferences

Filter and focus nodes

dimitris: meeting to happen with karen - report next week.

ISSUE-178

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/178

holger: reminder - possibility for a specific constraint, add a message for validation reports.
... currently not legal.
... proposal is to allow this in constraints

http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#results-message

karen: seems to be different between SHACL core and SHACL full.

holger: intent is that can apply to both.

karen: my Q is about machine generated messages

dimitris: control of the message the engine uses to report

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to address pushback from shex

karen: expect sh:message to be defined on a constraint.
... (i.e. sec 4 - scribe)

arnaud: this would be done as part of the impl of resolution

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-178, accepting the proposal to allow sh:message to be used in core on a constraint to override the implementation default message

<hknublau> +1

<Dimitris> +1

<TallTed> +1

<kcoyle> +1

+1

<Labra> 0

<ericP> 0

<marqh> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-178, accepting the proposal to allow sh:message to be used in core on a constraint to override the implementation default message

<ericP> scribenick: ericP

ISSUE-182

issue-182

<trackbot> issue-182 -- Clarifications needed to section 3.0 -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/182

karen: having a formal syntax would be helpful
... it says "results MAY be returned"
... in the library world, we talk about "mandatory" amd "mandatory if applicable"
... does MAY mean "MAY if there are values"? and must ALL values be returned?
... could an impl decide that it's only going to return the first two?

[re 3.4.1.3 and 3.4.1.8]

hknublau: we discussed that already. sh:value isn't used in the shapes graph so it can't be coded in the constraint

<Arnaud> it is now 3.4.3 http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#results-value

kcoyle: it's not coming from the shapes graph but a value has been evaluated.
... if one or more values is evaluated, it appears optional whether to return that in the report.
... if there is more than one value, is it mandatory to return all of them?

hknublau: if a value for sh:value is produced, the constraint components explicity mention it.

<Dimitris> we can say it is the value node or the binding of sh:value in SHACL Full

hknublau: e.g. 4.9.1 (sh:closed)
... [reads definition which mentions sh:value]

Arnaud: i think is the sort of thing that pfps has issues with as well

Dimitris: so we need to describe what is required and what is returned?

[this is all editorial. leaving it to the editors and Karen]

ISSUE-140

issue-140

<trackbot> issue-140 -- SHACL needs to support validation of individual nodes -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/140

<Dimitris> current definition is here: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#validation

<hknublau> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Oct/0030.html

hknublau: we discussed this two weeks ago.
... in the email that I linked above, i sought clarification

<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#item08

hknublau: passing this back to ericP and TallTed

Dimitris: [reads from the spec]
... i think this addresses ericP's concearns

<Arnaud> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#validation

https://shexspec.github.io/spec/#nodeKind

Dimitris: are we missing something or do we need to present this better?

ericP: the latter, but i think it needs a discearning eye to get it

kcoyle: i would like ericP to post his version so the group can see it.

ISSUE-131

issue-131

<trackbot> issue-131 -- The definition of sh:hasShape has errors and holes -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/131

<Arnaud> as far as I can tell the last time it was discussed was: https://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-shapes-minutes.html#item02

<TallTed> on ISSUE-140 -- what happened to the image showing the narrowing from datagraph -> targets -> filters -> focusnodes ?

<TallTed> I think that shows how to make the validation apply to a single-focusnode-within-a-graph, just by defining target as ex:node

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

hknublau: I will propose closure for issue-131 with links