12:57:12 RRSAgent has joined #shapes 12:57:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/19-shapes-irc 12:57:14 RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes 12:57:14 Zakim has joined #shapes 12:57:16 Zakim, this will be SHAPES 12:57:16 ok, trackbot 12:57:17 Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference 12:57:17 Date: 19 October 2016 12:57:42 present+ 12:57:46 scribe: simonstey chair: Arnaud agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.10.19 12:58:23 AndyS has joined #shapes 12:58:36 kcoyle has joined #shapes 12:59:18 Dimitris has joined #shapes 12:59:36 present+ 12:59:49 present+ 13:00:11 present +kcoyle 13:00:56 present+ 13:02:15 marqh has joined #shapes 13:02:21 present+ 13:03:41 Topic: Admin 13:04:05 PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 11 Oct 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-shapes-minutes.html 13:04:23 +1 13:04:31 present+ 13:04:33 +1 13:04:36 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 11 Oct 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/11-shapes-minutes.html 13:04:42 present+ 13:04:44 pano has joined #shapes 13:04:56 Labra has joined #shapes 13:05:08 Arnaud: based on Jose's email, I propose to change our weekly calls back to Wednesday 13:05:46 ... eventhough it's not optimal for all of us, it's not as bad as tuesday 13:05:49 PROPOSED: Move weekly calls back to Wednesday 13:05:52 +1 13:05:55 +1 13:05:57 +1 13:06:03 +1 13:06:06 hsolbrig has joined #shapes 13:06:10 +1 13:06:13 present+ 13:06:40 present+ 13:06:45 +1 13:06:46 +1 13:06:47 +1 13:06:47 +1 13:06:47 present+ 13:06:49 +1 13:06:54 RESOLVED: Move weekly calls back to Wednesday 13:07:13 zakim, who's here? 13:07:13 Present: simonstey, AndyS, Arnaud, hknublau, marqh, Dimitris, kcoyle, hsolbrig, pano, Labra, TallTed, ericP 13:07:16 On IRC I see hsolbrig, Labra, pano, marqh, Dimitris, kcoyle, AndyS, Zakim, RRSAgent, hknublau, simonstey, Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, ericP, trackbot 13:07:43 Arnaud: I've not forgotten about my action 13:07:52 TallTed has joined #shapes 13:08:03 Topic: Disposal of raised issues 13:08:09 PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-190, ISSUE-191 13:08:10 issue-190 13:08:11 issue-190 -- Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph -- raised 13:08:11 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/190 13:08:15 issue-191 13:08:15 issue-191 -- Should the value types of parameters be constraints -- raised 13:08:15 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/191 13:08:22 +1 13:08:25 +1 13:08:35 +1 13:08:39 +1 13:08:42 +1 13:08:44 +1 13:08:49 +1 13:08:55 +1 13:09:05 RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-190, ISSUE-191 13:09:12 Topic: ACTION-43 13:09:16 action-43 13:09:16 action-43 -- Mark Hedley to Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed -- due 2016-10-04 -- OPEN 13:09:16 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/43 13:10:18 Arnaud: marqh took an action to read through the spec to check whether there are still parts that would need to be fixed 13:10:43 ... so marqh, what's the outcome? 13:10:52 marqh: I picked up 2 starting points 13:11:52 ... 1) where the term node and resource is being used 13:12:35 ... 2) SPARQL terminology 13:12:54 BTW I appreciate the specific pull requests - makes editing job easier and clearer. 13:13:21 ... e.g., solution, binding, solution set (?), etc. 13:13:52 "Solution Mapping" :: https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlSolutions 13:14:02 ... so from my perspective, I don't feel like I've already completed my action 13:14:30 q+ 13:14:37 ... I think another pass would be required 13:15:02 Arnaud: I'm totally fine with keeping the action open 13:15:28 ack kcoyle 13:16:02 kcoyle: I had actually closed the issues pfps complained about and I haven't reopened them since 13:16:16 A 'binding' is a pair (variable, RDF term) in a solution mapping but is not defined formally in SPARQL and is used loosely in other ways. 13:16:34 q+ 13:18:04 ... I certainly have comments but don't think they are worth being issues 13:19:00 q+ 13:19:07 Arnaud: everyone should use whatever he/she prefers to work with 13:19:13 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O24vnnZuTWQgi2-U_-lnY-IjV9EbRyxNtrYC3zq2pnM/edit 13:19:31 see section 3, which has not been completed 13:19:43 ... not sure whether cloning the spec on google docs makes sense 13:20:04 q+ 13:20:14 q+ 13:20:15 ack ericP 13:20:20 ... all changes made on google docs would have been replicated on github 13:20:49 ericP: I haven't found any issues wrt. using google docs for editing the spec 13:20:59 ack marqh 13:21:56 marqh: there may be some value in following up on pfps comment on closing issue 142 13:22:40 ... if people are not familiar with using github I would encourage them to have a look at github's web interface 13:23:05 q+ 13:23:16 ack hsolbrig 13:23:56 q- 13:24:16 hsolbrig: I'm following up on advocating using github 13:24:34 ack TallTed 13:25:01 q+ 13:25:07 TallTed: I'm advocating against using google docs 13:25:52 ack kcoyle 13:26:03 Arnaud: if the editors take the responsibility to keep the documents consistent 13:26:27 ... they can use whatever they prefer 13:26:57 kcoyle: with github I can make edits 13:27:04 ... but there is no discussion 13:27:15 q+ 13:27:56 ... are there any other alternatives? 13:28:18 ... I have dozens of comments on e.g., 2 paragraphs 13:28:40 ... how should we handle those? 13:29:38 Arnaud: other groups are using github issues 13:29:52 q- 13:30:31 kcoyle: How would I refer to specific parts of the spec? 13:30:43 q+ 13:30:46 ... line numbers? 13:31:00 ack ericP 13:31:13 Arnaud: lets add a link to the doc to the wiki 13:32:13 ericP: one approach would be to have all the conversation on the google doc 13:32:17 q+ 13:32:25 ... but make changes first to github 13:32:26 ack Dimitris 13:33:00 Dimitris: kcoyle was not changing text but suggesting it 13:33:40 ... only if an editor approves the changes, they make it to github 13:34:04 q+ 13:34:19 Arnaud: [mentions gerrit (?) as alternative] 13:34:26 ack ericP 13:34:52 ... it's based on git 13:35:20 it is possible to make line comments on PR's on github.com though 13:37:00 Arnaud: just for the record, I once lost all access rights to google docs.. 13:37:13 TOPIC: ISSUE-131 13:37:18 issue-131 13:37:18 issue-131 -- The definition of sh:hasShape has errors and holes -- open 13:37:18 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/131 13:37:25 Arnaud: any news? 13:38:15 hknublau: I wrote down a proposal explaining how mentioned issues were addressed 13:38:48 ... for now, I think the function is well behaving 13:39:39 q+ 13:39:41 Arnaud: are we ready to close the issue per hknublau's proposal? 13:39:43 ack Dimitris 13:40:40 q+ 13:40:41 Dimitris: one issue was requiring having access to the shapes graph 13:40:58 ack hknublau 13:41:06 ... I'm not blocking a resolution but I'm not happy with closing it 13:41:31 q+ 13:42:03 hknublau: there is really no need for accessing a shapes graph variable 13:42:10 ack kcoyle 13:42:32 kcoyle: I've a general comment about SHACL full 13:42:49 ... as it isn't written as being a general purpose language 13:42:59 q+ 13:43:00 ... but more as being a SPARQL extension 13:43:30 ack Dimitris 13:44:00 Arnaud: to be fair, we kinda agreed to that.. i.e., using SPARQL as our execution language 13:45:52 Arnaud: is the question of arguments critical to the resolution of issue-131? 13:47:10 q+ 13:47:17 ack hknublau 13:47:19 summarising my points is that I think sh:hasShape is not needed in general in SHACL in general 13:47:23 ... it might be a progress to close the general issue and reopen a new one having a more narrower scope 13:48:09 hknublau: the argument has been removed because it was just the URI of the shapes graph 13:48:41 ... and a shapes graph might not have a URI 13:49:57 Arnaud: so a shapes graph might not be addressible? 13:50:50 Dimitris: I still think the hasShape function makes SHACL way more complicated than necessary 13:52:10 ... [explains changed nature of hasShape] 13:52:59 ... currrently only sh:node is defined using hasShape 13:53:17 hknublau: there are def. use cases for hasShape 13:53:19 we can alredy test members of a list with property paths now 13:53:44 ... especially for expressing things we couldn't express otherwise 13:53:47 How to test that all members have a given shape? 13:53:59 q+ 13:54:03 ack kcoyle 13:54:04 with sh:path 13:54:18 and sh:shape 13:54:28 kcoyle: what Dimitris said makes sense to me.. maybe we should have a strawpoll? 13:54:39 STRAWPOLL: Close ISSUE-131, a) as is, b) removing sh:hasShape 13:55:01 a) -.8 b) +1 13:55:07 a) -.9, b) +1 13:55:31 a) -0.9 b) +0.9 13:55:43 a) 0 b) +1 13:55:58 a) 0 b) +0.5 13:56:50 a) 0 b) +1 13:57:12 a) -0.5 b) +0.5 c) +0.5 13:57:28 c) +1 13:57:43 c) 0 13:57:43 c) -.99 13:57:46 c) 0 13:57:54 c) -0 13:57:55 how about c) as is but optional 13:58:16 PROPOSED: CLose ISSUE-131, removing sh:hasShape 13:58:22 +1 13:58:23 -0.9 13:58:28 +1 13:58:31 +1 13:58:34 0 13:58:36 +1 13:58:37 0 13:58:37 +1 13:58:38 +0.5 13:58:43 0 13:58:52 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-131, removing sh:hasShape 13:58:54 +1 13:59:08 Topic: Filter and focus nodes 14:00:30 kcoyle: Dimitris and I were going through the spec, looking for places where filters/focus nodes are used 14:01:28 q+ 14:01:33 ack Dimitris 14:02:42 Dimitris: what do we do with targets? how targets are used esp. wrt. to their sorrounding shape 14:02:46 q+ 14:02:59 ack kcoyle 14:03:03 ... if a shape is being referenced from another shape 14:03:21 kcoyle: I think we need issues for that 14:04:12 Topic: ISSUE-92: additive repeated properties 14:04:14 issue-92 14:04:14 issue-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- open 14:04:14 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92 14:05:07 Arnaud: it actually points to a gap in SHACL 14:05:45 ... we now have sh:partition 14:06:14 ericP: hknublau and I discussed this a bit 14:06:36 eric's email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Oct/0109.html 14:07:02 -> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-abstract-syntax/shex-to-shacl Mapping of ShEx to SHACL 14:07:30 q+ 14:07:32 ... this document explains how one can use ShEx for writing SHACL 14:08:10 ... I changed the semantics of sh:partition to fit ShEx semantics 14:08:28 ack hknublau 14:08:55 hknublau: how would this feature be published? 14:09:12 ... I'm afraid that we're running out of time 14:09:44 ericP: we do have tests&test suite already done 14:11:14 Arnaud: I feel that we owe it to the ShEx community to not drop that feature 14:12:36 hknublau: I'm absolutely sympathetic in building bridges here 14:14:16 section 4.8.3 14:14:34 Arnaud: ericP, would it be possible for you to replace Arthur's description on sh:partition with yours? 14:15:01 http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#PartitionConstraintComponent 14:16:27 q+ 14:16:35 ack kcoyle 14:16:39 hknublau: I still hope that this ends up as being an optional feature 14:16:49 kcoyle: at the moment, this is in core 14:17:10 ericP: we could just say that this is an optional feature 14:17:24 ... and make sure the test suite treats it as such 14:17:40 q+ 14:18:53 q- 14:19:33 Arnaud: [discusses how optional features influence publication of specs] 14:21:16 Arnaud: we leave the issue open for now 14:21:22 Topic: ISSUE-140: Individual validation 14:21:24 issue-140 14:21:24 issue-140 -- SHACL needs to support validation of individual nodes -- open 14:21:24 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/140 14:22:00 ericP: I was working on the other stuff, so no progress for now 14:22:14 Topic: ISSUE-177: abstract-syntax-disconnected 14:22:17 issue-177 14:22:18 issue-177 -- Abstract Syntax is disconnected from concrete syntax -- open 14:22:18 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/177 14:22:41 ericP: what are we going to test in terms of error handling? 14:23:00 ... we could test the content of errors 14:23:30 ... as soon as I know it, I could put it in the AS 14:23:51 q+ 14:23:58 q- 14:24:36 Dimitris: to check true/false only 14:24:49 kcoyle: I can recall another one you mentioned Dimitris 14:25:06 ... having a validation report also for things that validate correctly 14:25:28 Dimitris: that's about representation 14:26:48 q+ 14:26:49 ericP: the problem is that we have a certain structure and we have a certain notion of validity 14:27:54 ... but we don't have a specific combination of schema&data that we can hand to an implemention 14:28:01 hknublau: we do have that! 14:29:08 ack Labra 14:29:26 Dimitris: the spec says that for every violated core constraint a result is returned 14:30:10 q+ 14:30:34 Labra: [mentions (performance) issues of requiring to return all errors] 14:31:28 ... and you also don't know whether shape validation passed 14:31:32 ack kcoyle 14:31:38 ... or whether it just failed 14:32:21 kcoyle: specific messages are only returned in SHACL full 14:33:41 trackbot, end meeting 14:33:41 Zakim, list attendees 14:33:41 As of this point the attendees have been simonstey, AndyS, Arnaud, hknublau, marqh, Dimitris, kcoyle, hsolbrig, pano, Labra, TallTed, ericP 14:33:49 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 14:33:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/19-shapes-minutes.html trackbot 14:33:50 RRSAgent, bye 14:33:50 I see no action items