13:33:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
13:33:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-shapes-irc
13:33:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:33:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
13:33:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:33:07 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:33:08 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:33:08 <trackbot> Date: 09 November 2016
<ericP> chair: ericP
<ericP> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.11.09
<ericP> regrets: Arnaud, pano
13:33:25 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
13:33:34 <ericP> marqh: happy to scribe
13:33:39 <ericP> ... how do i do so?
13:33:48 <ericP> marqh: happy to marqh
13:34:03 <ericP> scribenick: marqh
13:34:12 <marqh> present+
13:34:15 <hknublau> present+
13:34:19 <Labra> present+
13:34:20 <ericP> present+
13:34:27 <simonstey> present+
13:34:32 <ericP> : Approve minutes of the 2 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-minutes
13:34:37 <ericP> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 2 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-minutes
13:34:40 <marqh> ericP: first topic, approve previous minutes
13:34:43 <ericP> topic: Admin
13:34:45 <ericP> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 2 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-minutes
13:35:00 <marqh> ericP: exciting bits: end of minutes
13:35:08 <Labra> ** I will leave in 10 mins and be back after another 20mins
13:35:22 <marqh> ... opened issue 193 targets can be defined
13:35:49 <marqh> ... closed issue 191, about valueTypes et al.
13:36:10 <simonstey> +1
13:36:11 <ericP> +1
13:36:11 <Labra> +1
13:36:12 <hknublau> +1
13:36:17 <ericP> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 2 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-shapes-minutes
13:36:33 <ericP> PROPOSED: Change time of regular weekly call to 8:30am US Eastern
13:36:59 <ericP> +1
13:37:03 <hknublau> +1
13:37:03 <marqh> ericP: quorum is marginal, but best we can do
13:37:12 <simonstey> +1
13:37:16 <Labra> 0
13:37:21 <ericP> RESOLVED: Change time of regular weekly call to 8:30am US Eastern
13:37:23 <marqh> +1
13:37:48 <ericP> PROPOSED: Virtual F2F scheduled on 16 Nov 08:00-12:00 EST
13:38:01 <ericP> -> http://doodle.com/poll/nzfev6sgnu38695p doodle poll
13:38:14 <hknublau> +1
13:38:20 <ericP> +1
13:38:21 <marqh> ericP: virtual face to face meeting proposal
13:38:29 <simonstey> +1
13:38:43 <Labra> 0
13:39:06 <ericP> RESOLVED: Virtual F2F scheduled on 16 Nov 08:00-12:00 EST
13:39:12 <ericP> topic: Disposal of Raised Issues
13:39:24 <ericP> issue-194
13:39:24 <trackbot> issue-194 -- stems in value sets -- raised
13:39:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/194
13:39:57 <marqh> ericP: when we had a discussion of what we call stems in sheks, we weren't specific about how they are used.
13:40:12 <marqh> ... any value set is an enumeration of a long or
13:40:34 <marqh> ... this can include URIs that a certain substring, and excluding other substrings
13:40:45 <marqh> ... this is about URIs starting with a substring only
13:40:56 <ericP> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-194
13:41:00 <ericP> +1
13:41:01 <simonstey> +1
13:41:05 <Labra> +1
13:41:06 <hknublau> +1
13:41:09 <marqh> ... the proposal is to raise ISSUE-194 to address this
13:41:10 <marqh> +1
13:41:16 <ericP> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-194
13:41:30 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-183
13:41:30 <trackbot> issue-183 -- Eliminating the term "Undefined" -- open
13:41:30 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/183
13:42:13 <marqh> ericP: this came for dimitris, but he is not here
13:42:19 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-184
13:42:19 <trackbot> issue-184 -- Property paths and value nodes -- open
13:42:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/184
13:42:32 <marqh> ... we may leave this issue unresolved
13:43:09 <marqh> hknublau: i can pick this up.  In have avoided the term and teh change is now dealt with.  the issue can be closed, in my view
13:43:28 <marqh> ... the background is about the term 'undefined'
13:43:35 <marqh> ... what terms to return a node or nothing
13:43:49 <marqh> ... closest in SPARQL is a SPARQL error
13:43:53 <marqh> ... so I have just used this
13:44:11 <marqh> ericP: I understand, i would like dimitris to agree to closure
13:44:29 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #shapes
13:44:41 <marqh> hknublau: dimitirs may just be late, let's defer in case he arrives
13:44:45 <marqh> ericP: agreed
13:45:10 <marqh> ericP: lets move to issue-191
13:45:15 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-191
13:45:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-191 -- Should the value types of parameters be constraints -- closed
13:45:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/191
13:45:33 <marqh> hknublau: this issue is already closed, resolved last week
13:46:17 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-140
13:46:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-140 -- SHACL needs to support validation of individual nodes -- open
13:46:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/140
13:46:25 <TallTed> present+
13:47:38 <marqh> ericP: one way to look at this is that a this can be handled with distinct mechanism
13:47:52 <marqh> .. the spec can describe no shape pairs
13:47:59 <marqh> ... i have made a proposal
13:48:19 <marqh> ... one approach i would propose is to move the section on how we sift through graphs and compose node shape pairs
13:48:30 <marqh> ... then have a seperate operation that mkaes it clear it is done one
13:48:33 <marqh> ... once
13:49:09 <marqh> hknublau: it sounds like we need a compromise here.  sheks are not fond of targets, in my view targets are useful
13:49:14 <Labra> ** I have to leave now...be back in 20 mins...
13:49:27 <marqh> ... why don't we meet in th3e middle, have some targets in examples and some without targets
13:49:43 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
13:49:49 <marqh> .. look under focesNodes.  this describes how focusNodes can be determined
13:49:57 <marqh> ... I woudl like input from sheks on
13:50:10 <marqh> ... it is also possible to pass a node into a processor by some means
13:50:25 <marqh> ... a sentence to put in here to mention this explicitly would be useful
13:50:40 <marqh> ... add som examples with no target, with text to clarify node origins
13:50:43 <Dimitris> present+
13:50:45 <marqh> ...  this could be a good compromise
13:50:59 <marqh> ericP: i am content with that
13:51:39 <marqh> ericP: it does make it harder to separate the 2 processes, but that may not be a problem
13:52:12 <ericP> PROPOSED: resolve issue-140 by having half of the examples include target* and the other half not.
13:53:02 <ericP> +.5
13:53:20 <marqh> TallTed: that puts significant weight on having examples of both kinds in each case
13:53:28 <hknublau> +0.5
13:53:39 <marqh> ericP: can readers extrapolate and understand
13:54:03 <simonstey> +q
13:54:25 <marqh> some examples in one formulation and some in the other, we set it up so that is how it is implemented
13:54:34 <ericP> ack next
13:54:58 <marqh> simonstey: to support what TallTed has said, some example with or without target, people will read into this
13:55:14 <marqh> ... so examples consistency is helpful
13:55:25 <Dimitris> q+
13:55:45 <ericP> ack next
13:55:50 <marqh> ... some statements saying 'target omitted in this example' will get missed by readers
13:56:35 <TallTed> maybe include a comment-line next to each target triple, saying "that triple is optional"
13:56:41 <marqh> Dimitris: we can have examples with targets, then ones showing how targets may be ommitted in some cases
13:57:04 <marqh> ericP: could have targets in a seperate block, illustrating that it provides functionality
13:57:17 <marqh> Dimitris: this is a differnet type o fvalidation
13:57:33 <marqh> Dimitris: just need to show how to omit them in specific csaes
13:57:52 <marqh> ericP: having targets in there is problematic for useability
13:58:06 <marqh> .. inherent cost of having things written into the shape graph or data graph
13:58:11 <marqh> ... inherent cost of having things written into the shape graph or data graph
13:58:22 <marqh> ... making the shape graph predestined for some data
13:58:32 <hknublau> strongly disagree, except for sh:targetNode
13:58:47 <marqh> ... my goal is to show how to add that, but you don't have to have a target for validation
13:59:01 <simonstey> +q
13:59:14 <ericP> ack next
13:59:16 <TallTed> or a comment line saying "targets could be set here, as ..."
13:59:37 <marqh> Dimitris: having both ways, showing targets can be ignored is useful
13:59:58 <hknublau> different CSS would be ok
14:00:02 <marqh> ericP: duplicating all the examples is one way, could get busy
14:00:18 <marqh> ... could have a section showing the alternative approach
14:00:18 <simonstey> +q
14:00:45 <ericP> ack next
14:01:10 <marqh> TallTed: consistent style as a link
14:01:16 <marqh> hknublau: i like this approach
14:01:44 <marqh> simonstey: can do some fancy javascript to enable switching things on and off in examples
14:02:29 <marqh> ericP: editorial question; i suspect flat styling is sensible
14:03:32 <ericP> PROPOSED: close issue-140 by adding some consistent style and a link to say that target* is not needed for invocations by API
14:03:40 <hknublau> +1
14:03:43 <simonstey> +1
14:03:43 <Dimitris> +1
14:03:52 <ericP> +1
14:03:56 <TallTed> +1
14:04:10 <marqh> hknublau: do you want to include text into bullet 9.1
14:04:20 <marqh> ericP: i'll come up with something for this
14:04:28 <ericP> RESOLVED: close issue-140 by adding some consistent style and a link to say that target* is not needed for invocations by API
14:04:45 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-183
14:04:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-183 -- Eliminating the term "Undefined" -- open
14:04:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/183
14:04:45 <hknublau> (bullet 2.1 Focus Nodes)
14:05:11 <ericP> -> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/b367dcd030c652bcb7f7818bb01177dbb7f1d50b holger's edits addressing issue-183
14:05:35 <marqh> Dimitris: this is an old one
14:05:46 <marqh> hknublau: this is about sparql functions which return nothing
14:06:03 <marqh> ... term is SPARQL error, i have used 'undefined' not an official term
14:06:32 <marqh> Dimitris: happy to close this
14:06:32 <ericP> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-183, accepting the edits made by the editors to eliminate the term undefined which alters the definition of the sh:hasShape SPARQL function
14:06:38 <hknublau> +1
14:06:40 <ericP> +0
14:06:45 <marqh> +1
14:06:47 <simonstey> +1
14:07:00 <Dimitris> +1
14:07:04 <TallTed> +1
14:07:07 <ericP> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-183, accepting the edits made by the editors to eliminate the term undefined which alters the definition of the sh:hasShape SPARQL function
14:07:15 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-184
14:07:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-184 -- Property paths and value nodes -- open
14:07:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/184
14:07:54 <marqh> Dimitris: use sparql definitions for property paths
14:08:12 <marqh> ... when on property paths don't take duplicate nodes
14:08:21 <marqh> ... issues including cardinality
14:08:42 <marqh> ... proposal is to work with sets
14:08:54 <marqh> hknublau: this is already implemented in the spec
14:09:06 <marqh> ... the question is whether people are against this change
14:09:14 <ericP> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-184, agreeing that on property constraints with sh:path the value nodes are a set with no duplicate value nodes.
14:09:20 <hknublau> +1
14:09:22 <Dimitris> +1
14:09:27 <marqh> +1
14:09:28 <ericP> +1
14:09:31 <TallTed> +1
14:09:35 <simonstey> +1
14:09:56 <ericP> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-184, agreeing that on property constraints with sh:path the value nodes are a set with no duplicate value nodes.
14:10:00 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-185
14:10:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-185 -- Processing order for filters and constraints -- open
14:10:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/185
14:10:52 <marqh> Dimitris: after some of peter's comments, introduced ordering, proposl: there is an ordering
14:11:19 <simonstey> +1
14:11:21 <simonstey> +q
14:11:30 <ericP> ack next
14:11:53 <marqh> simonstey: are there any implication that arbitray order allows you to do, rather than this strict order
14:12:02 <marqh> ... is there something you can't do
14:12:17 <marqh> ... is there minimal implication
14:12:51 <marqh> Dimitris: can make single query for whole constraint, can choose to operate on fewer nodes
14:13:11 <marqh> ... when a failure occurs, not easy to define what happens
14:13:30 <marqh> simonstey: if validation fails, based on node not to be included, but filter not applied yet?
14:14:05 <marqh> ... if first step fails, then could end up with different results
14:14:11 <marqh> ericP: ambiguous
14:14:47 <marqh> Dimitris: might not complete result back when failure occurs
14:15:10 <marqh> simonstey: if filter wants only to check constraint on 'male' persons
14:15:19 <marqh> ... now, do you do filtering afterwards?
14:15:53 <marqh> ... failure might not occur if filtering done first
14:16:10 <marqh> hknublau: i think this can be avoided if we always evaluate both: enforce this rule
14:16:20 <marqh> ... in this case, these are not returned as failures
14:16:30 <marqh> ... even if there is a failure, it woudl not propagate up
14:17:13 <marqh> simonstey: do we need to consider a crashdue to the failure
14:17:19 <marqh> hknublau: i don't think so
14:18:12 <marqh> ericP: this is a form of negation and failure; sometimes you need to avoid ssituation where you can infer p and not p
14:19:18 <marqh> ericP: Proposal: SHACL does not force whether filters or constraints are evaluated first for validating a node against a shape.
14:19:37 <ericP> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-185, agreeing that SHACL does not define whether filters or constraints are evaluated first when validating a node against a shape, but both must be evaluated
14:19:44 <marqh> simonstey: if constraint is evaluated before filter, both must be evaluated
14:19:49 <simonstey> +1
14:19:49 <hknublau> +0.5
14:19:53 <Dimitris> +1
14:19:55 <ericP> 0
14:19:57 <marqh> q+
14:20:00 <Labra> 0
14:20:17 <TallTed> q+
14:20:28 <ericP> marqh: re readability: should we just say "but all must be evaluated"?
14:20:34 <ericP> ack next
14:21:01 <marqh> TallTed: as i recall, the point on filters was to eliminate from constraint validation things which may be problematic
14:21:34 <marqh> simonstey: maybe not to include focus nodes, it may be useful
14:21:36 <marqh> q+
14:21:52 <marqh> simonstey: may want to filter out certain nodes
14:22:04 <ericP> ack next
14:22:08 <marqh> TallTed: may have a million zeros and six ones, why invest time on things which don't matter
14:22:18 <marqh> hknublau: similar with sh:and and sh:or
14:22:37 <marqh> hknublau: every filter is an and or an or, can be turned around
14:23:01 <marqh> TallTed: if can't hint at order, every job may last for ever
14:24:02 <ericP> marqh: i feel like we don't need to mention ordering. it's defined either way
14:24:14 <marqh> TallTed: then they are not filters, they are constraints
14:24:22 <ericP> s/mention ordering/mention ordering in the standard/
14:24:33 <marqh> simonstey: if validation of the filter fails, are you returning any results
14:25:06 <marqh> ... if constraint fails, you woudl return a validation results
14:25:07 <Dimitris> q+
14:25:23 <ericP> ack next
14:25:29 <marqh> TallTed: i see not value in not saying: this is teh order that this should be dealt in
14:26:32 <hknublau> q+
14:26:39 <ericP> ack next
14:26:39 <marqh> marqh: interested in the reason to maintain the felixibilty nod not have order
14:27:00 <simonstey> +q
14:27:22 <ericP> ack next
14:27:23 <marqh> Dimitris: have and and or where order does not matter, this is consistent
14:28:04 <marqh> hknublau: unfortunately, had long discussion with karen, on what is considerd a focusNode. we agreed that a focusNode is a node which passes all teh filters
14:28:13 <marqh> ... target - filters are focusNodes
14:28:33 <marqh> ... need order that things are defined
14:28:43 <simonstey> q?
14:29:06 <marqh> TallTed: filter should be evaluated before constraints by the spec
14:29:38 <marqh> TallTed: i believe hinting is a good thing, ordering helps
14:30:02 <marqh> ... harder in RDF world to have ordering, but having a class of things to deal with
14:30:03 <ericP> ack next
14:30:29 <marqh> simonstey: and and or are completely different things.  ordering with regard to constraints is needed
14:30:43 <marqh> ... checking the filter afterwards is not good
14:31:22 <Dimitris> q+
14:31:35 <marqh> ... if either of the ands fail, you could do a lot of work not required
14:31:50 <ericP> ack next
14:32:27 <marqh> Dimitris: two and statements, order matters. engine evaluates
14:33:04 <marqh> simonstey: if you have an and and 2 shapes, if one fails, can return faster result
14:33:49 <marqh> ... with filter and constraint, if constraint first, fails, then filter passes, return result, if ordered differently, diferent results returned
14:34:03 <marqh> q+
14:34:31 <marqh> Dimitris: i am not sure, i think the same thing happens
14:35:01 <ericP> ack next
14:36:03 <ericP> marqh: it sounds to me like we should change the issue-185 proposal "SHACL *does* not care about order" to "SHACL *does* care about the order"
14:36:22 <marqh> marqh in favour of changing ISSUE-185 to propose that filters are evaluated before constraints
14:37:06 <marqh> Dimitris: i mind, but i am willing to consider
14:38:20 <marqh> simonstey: i think that Dimitris has a valid point why cases are not that different.  in both cases if you evaluate wrong side first, then the very last would fail, the outcome is the same; i get this
14:38:58 <marqh> ... unless a strong reason exists for flexibilty, it is useful to require that filters are evaluated first
14:39:40 <marqh> ... could make statement that it doesn't matter to the result, but the filters shall be evaluated first
14:39:56 <marqh> TallTed: this is a useful detail for the reader
14:40:34 <marqh> ... if shape2 does not pass filter, then the work is trivially satisfied
14:41:24 <marqh> Dimitris: if we have order, we cannot model the shape as sh:and and sh:or
14:42:39 <marqh> ... if there is no ordering, then we can model teh filter like an sh:or
14:43:11 <marqh> TallTed: the point of filter is to say don't evaluate
14:44:07 <marqh> ... we had a graphic showing that the filter pre-processess before constraints
14:46:15 <marqh> TallTed: is filter about results or about focusNodes?
14:46:36 <marqh> ericP: it is about removing results that would otherwise fail
14:47:01 <marqh> ericP: i think this is about result reporting: take 5 errors and return zero
14:47:19 <marqh> TallTed: then it should be about results filtering; it should be moved to the results section
14:47:42 <marqh> ... int that case, it would be not be about choosing focusNodes
14:48:07 <marqh> ericP: has the effect of filtering out results
14:48:17 <marqh> TallTed: question is what is being applied to
14:48:34 <marqh> ... if about trimming results, it comes at a different point, doing a different job
14:48:51 <marqh> ericP: not only about trimming results
14:48:56 <marqh> TallTed: it is a focusNode trimmer
14:49:34 <marqh> ericP: in C pragmas are written in as par tof the compiler
14:49:49 <marqh> ... Dimitris raised the point that it would be nice to let the system be smart
14:51:10 <marqh> q+
14:51:36 <ericP> ack next
14:53:12 <marqh> marqh: i am quite taken with the point that oreder should be enforced; i don't think the counter argument is strong
14:53:37 <marqh> ericP: Dimitris point is a good one, where the filter is very complex and may fail a lot
14:54:38 <Dimitris> this is more ordering
14:55:48 <marqh> TallTed: do we need 2 types of filter
14:55:53 <marqh> ericP: pre and post constrasin
14:56:01 <marqh> marqh: i'm not convinced 2 filter are needed
14:56:36 <marqh> simonstey: or and not are not intended to be used as filter
14:57:58 <marqh> ericP: how can a test be set up to test the order of processing
14:58:06 <marqh> TallTed: can write long test
14:59:33 <marqh> ... can make a test with a div0
14:59:36 <marqh> q+
14:59:51 <ericP> ack next
15:00:21 <ericP> marqh: if you have an impl, you can test pieces, even if it's not an end-to-end integration test
15:00:59 <ericP> ericP: so write it in English, not in standard test case format
15:01:03 <Dimitris> q+
15:01:54 <marqh> Dimitris: can provide a new definition int he spe to close this issue
15:02:00 <marqh> ... definition of validation
15:02:02 <Dimitris> A node validates against a shape if and only if either it does not validate against some filter of the shape or none of the constraints in the shape produce a validation result or a failure for the node.
15:02:37 <marqh> ericP: who will write a proposal for change
15:03:38 <ericP> ACTION: marqh to propose changes to the definition of validation to close issue-185
15:03:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Propose changes to the definition of validation to close issue-185 [on Mark Hedley - due 2016-11-16].
15:03:53 <ericP> ack next
15:04:06 <marqh> Dimitris: it's fine, i'm done
15:04:21 <ericP> trackbot, end meeting
15:04:21 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:04:21 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been marqh, hknublau, Labra, ericP, simonstey, TallTed, Dimitris
15:04:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:04:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
15:04:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:04:30 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-shapes-actions.rdf :
15:04:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: marqh to propose changes to the definition of validation to close issue-185 [1]
15:04:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/09-shapes-irc#T15-03-38