13:12:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
13:12:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-irc
13:12:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:12:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
13:12:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:12:36 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:12:36 <trackbot> Date: 02 November 2016
13:12:37 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:12:39 <hknublau> present+
13:12:39 <simonstey> present+
13:12:40 <pano> present+
13:12:43 <TallTed> present+
13:12:45 <kcoyle> present+
13:12:46 <hknublau> scribenick: hknublau
<ericP> chair: ericP
<ericP> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.11.02#ISSUE-188:_define_validation
13:13:19 <ericP> topic: Admin
13:13:22 <ericP> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 26 Oct 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-shapes-minutes
13:13:28 <kcoyle> +1
13:14:03 <hknublau> +1
13:14:16 <ericP> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 26 Oct 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/10/26-shapes-minutes
13:16:33 <AndyS> AndyS has left #shapes
13:17:21 <hknublau> topic: Meeting time
13:17:37 <hknublau> Discussing whether we could move the meeting 30 minutes earlier
13:19:20 <ericP> STRAWPOLL: can folks meet 30 mins earlier?
13:19:26 <ericP> yes
13:19:31 <kcoyle> ok
13:19:33 <simonstey> yes
13:19:33 <pano> yes
13:19:37 <hknublau> yes pls
13:19:56 <TallTed> reasonably likely
13:20:11 <hknublau> topic: Virtual F2F
13:23:32 <ericP> STRAWPOLL: virtual F2F 16 Nov 08:00-12:00 EST
13:23:36 <ericP> ok
13:23:42 <kcoyle> ok
13:23:42 <hknublau> ok
13:23:45 <simonstey> ok
13:24:12 <pano> ok
13:24:25 <TallTed> should be ok
13:24:50 <ericP> topic: Disposal of Raised Issues
13:24:57 <ericP> ISSUE-193
13:24:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-193 -- Targets can be refined; focus nodes do not change -- raised
13:24:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/193
13:28:43 <hknublau> ericP: (confirming the definition of focus nodes, value nodes)
13:30:13 <ericP> ericP: validation of a node as a shape starts with the node as the "focus node"; node constraints are evaluated with "value" as the focus node; path constraints treat the other end of the path as the "value"; recursive shapes treat the value as the focus node.
13:30:45 <ericP> PROPOSED: open ISSUE-193
13:30:49 <hknublau> +1
13:30:51 <ericP> +1
13:30:58 <pano> +1
13:31:04 <kcoyle> +1
13:31:10 <TallTed> +1
13:31:20 <ericP> RESOLVED: open ISSUE-193
13:31:51 <simonstey> topic:ISSUE-140
13:31:51 <trackbot> issue-140 -- SHACL needs to support validation of individual nodes -- open
13:31:51 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/140
13:35:22 <hknublau> ericP: (Summary of previous discussion on ISSUE-140)
13:36:34 <kcoyle> q+
13:36:55 <ericP> hknublau: i believe the problem you see with targets hindering reuse isn't a big issue. just add another targetClass for the class you want
13:37:20 <ericP> ericP: but if the shape has a targetClass of e.g. foaf:Person and i don't want to apply to all of them...
13:37:25 <ericP> hknublau: add a filterClass
13:37:33 <ericP> ack next
13:37:46 <hknublau> kcoyle: We don't have to argue about which one will win
13:37:53 <hknublau> ... both have use cases
13:38:35 <hknublau> ... spec states there can be zero or more targets, without saying what zero targets looks like
13:38:40 <ericP> q+ to propose moving the target* out to a control graph
13:39:54 <hknublau> hknublau: people can already do that, with named graphs
13:41:10 <hknublau> kcoyle: interesting idea but very different to what SHACL currently does
13:41:16 <hknublau> q+
13:41:23 <ericP> ack next
13:41:24 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose moving the target* out to a control graph
13:42:07 <hknublau> kcoyle: examples should not show targets
13:42:32 <ericP> ack next
13:43:52 <kcoyle> q+
13:44:21 <ericP> ack next
13:44:25 <TallTed> q+
13:45:02 <hknublau> kcoyle: An explanation should be given
13:45:22 <hknublau> ... "some of the following examples show how it looks without targets"
13:45:34 <hknublau> ... implicit statement should be made explicit
13:46:29 <ericP> ack next
13:46:32 <hknublau> ericP: Sounds good, I support putting a section into the target section
13:47:51 <hknublau> TallTed: Best compromise would be to show both patterns
13:48:17 <kcoyle> q+
13:48:20 <ericP> ack next
13:48:58 <hknublau> kcoyle: what about progressively
13:49:11 <hknublau> TallTed: makes sense if things are additive
13:50:06 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#targets
13:50:12 <simonstey> q+
13:50:23 <ericP> ack next
13:50:44 <hknublau> simonstey: does it make sense to have constraints without targets
13:51:09 <ericP> q+ to say that when we got the feedback about showing which nodes selections before we had tables with node/shape validation results
13:51:26 <ericP> ack next
13:51:27 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that when we got the feedback about showing which nodes selections before we had tables with node/shape validation results
13:51:27 <kcoyle> q+
13:52:45 <hknublau> ericP: in ShEx we rarely state a relation between a node and a shape
13:54:25 <ericP> ack next
13:54:27 <hknublau> ... we now have an API invocation convention
13:55:05 <simonstey> +q
13:55:07 <hknublau> kcoyle: What Simon said is half true. With property constraints you target a specific property.
13:56:02 <hknublau> hknublau: even for property constraints, you'd still need something like sh:targetSubjectOf
13:56:05 <ericP> ack next
14:02:39 <ericP> -> https://ericprud.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#h-shacl-example 1st API-style example
14:02:42 <ericP> 1+
14:02:44 <ericP> q+
14:05:17 <hknublau> (Totally lost scribing)
14:07:02 <hknublau> No resolution, editor waiting for specific input on what to add
14:07:06 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-188
14:07:23 <ericP> ISSUE-188
14:07:23 <trackbot> ISSUE-188 -- "Validation" needs to be defined -- open
14:07:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/188
14:07:58 <hknublau> kcoyle: the term validation (in English) is tricky - to make something true
14:08:22 <hknublau> ... unfortunately used with different definitions,
14:09:22 <hknublau> ... I had made a proposal on how to reformulate things
14:09:31 <hknublau> ... only use one meaning of validation
14:09:52 <ericP> q+ to propose "verification"
14:09:53 <hknublau> ... alternative: call validation -> "comparison"
14:09:57 <ericP> ack next
14:09:58 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose "verification"
14:10:13 <hknublau> ericP: I propose verification
14:11:00 <hknublau> hknublau: what about "checking"? Constraint checking sounds natural to me.
14:11:48 <hknublau> kcoyle: checking is a little informal
14:12:37 <hknublau> hknublau: Sounds like yet another editorial issue that is hard to discuss without looking at details
14:13:57 <hknublau> kcoyle: I'll work on a proposal / branch
14:14:28 <ericP> ACTION: kcoyle to fork an experiment without "validation"
14:14:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Fork an experiment without "validation" [on Karen Coyle - due 2016-11-09].
14:15:18 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-191
14:15:25 <ericP> ISSUE-191
14:15:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-191 -- Should the value types of parameters be constraints -- open
14:15:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/191
14:15:53 <hknublau> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/292f12936181ca2d3fd5c096a7880f2de6054f02
14:15:55 <ericP> hknublau: follow the link in the issue to the commit
14:16:34 <ericP> ... pfps was unhappy with the way we specified the permissible value types for Parameters (e.g. minCount takes an integer)
14:16:58 <ericP> ... this edit <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/292f12936181ca2d3fd5c096a7880f2de6054f02> is in the editor's draft
14:17:36 <ericP> ... whenever there's a clear constraint (e.g. "takes an integer"), i've added text in front to say "the value of blah blah is a foo".
14:17:46 <ericP> ... when it's not clear, i've not changed anything
14:18:05 <ericP> ... so this says that a shapes graph with a float minCount is invalid
14:18:11 <ericP> ... all ok with this edit?
14:18:12 <kcoyle> q+
14:18:18 <ericP> ack next
14:18:47 <hknublau> kcoyle: what about upper case MUST etc?
14:18:48 <ericP> kcoyle: are we upper-casing 2119 keywords?
14:19:11 <simonstey> The key words MAY, MUST, OPTIONAL, and REQUIRED are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
14:19:22 <hknublau> hknublau: I am never sure about this. It would be a huge edit to do this everywhere.
14:20:26 <simonstey> +q
14:20:31 <simonstey> -q
14:20:39 <simonstey> +1 to teds point
14:20:42 <ericP> hknublau: pfps said 2119 should be about tool conformance
14:21:01 <ericP> TallTed: i think here we don't say MUST; we say "is"
14:21:07 <hknublau> TallTed: MUST would be wrong to use here
14:21:31 <hknublau> ericP: SPARQL uses them minimally, TTL doesn't use it at all
14:22:38 <hknublau> Arnaud: Replace must with "is"
14:23:17 <hknublau> ... MUST is for the engine/implementation. Don't use it for the description of the language.
14:23:25 <ericP> PROPOSED: editors replace 2119 keywords with "is" when describing the language
14:23:37 <TallTed> "The values of … must be …" change to "The values of … are …"
14:25:03 <ericP> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-191 accepting <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/292f12936181ca2d3fd5c096a7880f2de6054f02> modulo changing 2119 keywords
14:25:08 <hknublau> +1
14:25:09 <ericP> +1
14:25:11 <TallTed> +1
14:25:12 <kcoyle> +1
14:25:17 <pano> +1
14:25:28 <ericP> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-191 accepting <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/292f12936181ca2d3fd5c096a7880f2de6054f02> modulo changing 2119 keywords
14:25:33 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-192
14:25:35 <ericP> ISSUE-192\
14:25:35 <trackbot> ISSUE-192 -- Should filter shapes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? -- open
14:25:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/192
14:26:11 <hknublau> kcoyle: this was a long discussion
14:26:16 <kcoyle> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Oct/0139.html
14:27:13 <hknublau> ... I still have (editorial) issues, but I am OK with moving on.
14:28:35 <hknublau> simonstey: echoing Arnaud's view on MUST
14:29:32 <hknublau> ... not native English speakers have it easier here, because we don't get these fine differences
14:31:10 <hknublau> ... goes back to shapes without target - needs to be referenced from another shape (e.g. sh:shape).
14:31:22 <hknublau> ... otherwise you'd need a target.
14:32:23 <Arnaud> for what it's worth, I share Karen's confusion about the way this is written
14:32:51 <hknublau> Please suggest better wording.
14:34:24 <ericP> ACTION: kcoyle to propose text for ISSUE-192
14:34:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Propose text for issue-192 [on Karen Coyle - due 2016-11-09].
14:40:35 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
14:40:35 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:40:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, simonstey, pano, TallTed, kcoyle, ericP, Arnaud
14:40:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:40:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
14:40:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:40:44 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-actions.rdf :
14:40:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: kcoyle to fork an experiment without "validation" [1]
14:40:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-irc#T14-14-28
14:40:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: kcoyle to propose text for ISSUE-192 [2]
14:40:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-irc#T14-34-24