12:56:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:56:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-shapes-irc
12:56:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:56:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
12:56:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:57:00 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:57:00 <trackbot> Date: 23 November 2016
12:57:01 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
12:57:50 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
13:00:00 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
13:01:11 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.11.23
13:01:39 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #shapes
13:01:46 <hknublau> present+
13:02:10 <Arnaud> present+
13:02:15 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
13:02:17 <ericP> present+
13:02:21 <kcoyle> present+
13:02:28 <Arnaud> regrets: Dimitris
13:05:12 <TallTed> present+
13:08:54 <Arnaud> scribe: TallTed
<TallTed> topic: Admin
13:09:44 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 16 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/16-shapes-minutes.html
13:09:49 <ericP> +1
13:09:56 <hknublau> +1
13:10:04 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 16 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/16-shapes-minutes.html
13:11:06 <kcoyle> q+
13:11:37 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
13:12:40 <TallTed> TOPIC: Latest round of editorial changes
13:12:40 <TallTed> kcoyle: questions on 2.1
13:18:06 <TallTed> [discussion of various wordings]
13:24:50 <Arnaud> kcoyle: "in a shape" doesn't make sense to me when a shape is a node - it is merely a URI
13:27:44 <ericP> +1 to "probability field"
<TallTed> [discussion of approval of edits]
13:37:03 <TallTed> Arnaud: will be done when we publish the next version
<TallTed> Arnaud: know it's not easy to be perfect but we need to be careful not to miss changes from the history
<TallTed> Holger: added the two Peter pointed out
13:37:34 <TallTed> TOPIC: Disposal of Raised Issues
13:37:52 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-197, ISSUE-198, ISSUE-201, ISSUE-202, ISSUE-203,  ISSUE-204, ISSUE-205, ISSUE-207, ISSUE-208, ISSUE-209, ISSUE-210,  ISSUE-211, ISSUE-212, ISSUE-213
13:38:01 <hknublau> +1
13:38:20 <kcoyle> +1
13:38:28 <TallTed> +1
13:39:08 <kcoyle> q+
13:39:38 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-197, ISSUE-198, ISSUE-201, ISSUE-202, ISSUE-203,  ISSUE-204, ISSUE-205, ISSUE-207, ISSUE-208, ISSUE-209, ISSUE-210,  ISSUE-211, ISSUE-212, ISSUE-213
13:39:45 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
13:41:03 <TallTed> kcoyle: have been doing a deep-review of whole document, currently have a number of notes on Section 3, and expect to have more on 4.
13:41:21 <kcoyle> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O24vnnZuTWQgi2-U_-lnY-IjV9EbRyxNtrYC3zq2pnM/edit
13:41:27 <TallTed> ... how can we handle these, other than an ISSUE for each?
13:44:28 <TallTed> TOPIC: Test Suite
13:45:49 <TallTed> ericP: found and suggested removal of a lot of "chattiness" / redundancies
13:46:48 <ericP> PROPOSED: Remove the "sht:data-format sht:TURTLE" triple.
13:46:59 <hknublau> +1
13:47:02 <ericP> +1
13:47:03 <kcoyle> 0
13:47:07 <TallTed> +1
13:47:30 <ericP> RESOLVED: Remove the "sht:data-format sht:TURTLE" triple.
13:47:55 <ericP> PROPOSED: Rename sht:node to sht:focus (or initial focus)
13:48:25 <ericP> PROPOSED: Rename sht:node to sht:focus
13:48:25 <hknublau> 0
13:48:31 <kcoyle> 0
13:48:34 <TallTed> +0
13:48:51 <ericP> +ε
13:49:00 <ericP> +1
13:49:22 <ericP> RESOLVED: Rename sht:node to sht:focus
13:49:37 <ericP> PROPOSED: Separate the target* parsing from validation with a structure like the one suggested in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0030
13:49:51 <ericP>   <S123> a sht:SelectionTest
13:49:51 <ericP>     mf:action <example-data.ttl> ;
13:49:51 <ericP>     mf:result
13:49:51 <ericP>       [ sht:focus <F1> ; sht:shape <S1> ],
13:49:51 <ericP>       [ sht:focus <F2> ; sht:shape <S2> ],
13:49:54 <ericP>       [ sht:focus <F3> ; sht:shape <S2> ].
13:51:20 <ericP>   <S123> a sht:SelectionTest
13:51:25 <TallTed> -1
13:51:29 <ericP>     mf:action [
13:51:56 <ericP>       sht:data <Is1_Ip1_DEC1_234.ttl> ;
13:52:20 <ericP>       sht:control <someFocii.ttl>
13:52:33 <ericP>     ];
13:52:42 <ericP>     mf:result
13:52:48 <ericP>       [ sht:focus <F1> ; sht:shape <S1> ],
13:52:53 <ericP>       [ sht:focus <F2> ; sht:shape <S2> ],
13:53:02 <ericP>       [ sht:focus <F3> ; sht:shape <S2> ].
13:54:27 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Separate the target* parsing from validation with a structure like the revision suggested above
13:54:33 <hknublau> 0
13:54:40 <TallTed> +0
13:54:41 <kcoyle> +1
13:54:50 <ericP> +1
13:55:09 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Separate the target* parsing from validation with a structure like the revision suggested above
13:58:58 <Arnaud> trackbot, close action-47
13:58:58 <trackbot> Closed action-47.
14:00:06 <TallTed> [TQ tests being added, some other related side topics...]
14:00:29 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-196: Delete filters
14:00:29 <TallTed> ISSUE-196?
14:00:29 <trackbot> ISSUE-196 -- Should we delete filter shapes? -- closed
14:00:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/196
14:03:07 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0028.html
14:03:25 <kcoyle> q+
14:05:19 <kcoyle> q-
14:10:31 <TallTed> Arnaud: we combined the two proposals into one because holger would only agree to remove filters if we add the flag to disable a shape/constraint
14:11:15 <TallTed> Arnaud: let's address Peter's point about the resolution: any node is considered conforming/valid != ignored
14:19:22 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Amend resolution on ISSUE-196 changing "ignored" to "valid"
14:23:43 <hknublau> +1
14:26:39 <TallTed> kcoyle: sh:disabled seems to add a lot of complication to satisfy a singular use case
14:27:28 <TallTed> ... in a large complex shape, effect seems hard to determine
14:28:09 <TallTed> old -- "Close ISSUE-196, deleting filter shape and instead, adding a boolean flag sh:disabled which (if true) means that a shape or constraint is ignored (i.e., any node is considered conforming/valid)."
14:28:32 <ericP> +1
14:28:46 <TallTed> -0.5
14:31:24 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Amend resolution on ISSUE-196 to "Close ISSUE-196, (1) deleting filter shape and (2) adding a boolean flag sh:disabled which (if true) means that a shape or constraint is always passed (i.e., all focus nodes are considered conforming/valid)."
14:32:39 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Amend resolution on ISSUE-196 to "Close ISSUE-196, (1) deleting filter shape and (2) adding a boolean flag sh:disabled which (if true) means that all focus nodes are considered conforming/valid."
14:32:47 <kcoyle> +1
14:32:53 <hknublau> +1
14:32:58 <TallTed> +0.5
14:33:09 <ericP> +1
14:33:56 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Amend resolution on ISSUE-196 to "Close ISSUE-196, (1) deleting filter shape and (2) adding a boolean flag sh:disabled which (if true) means that all focus nodes are considered conforming/valid."
14:34:09 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-194: valueStem
14:34:12 <TallTed> ISSUE-194?
14:34:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-194 -- stems in value sets -- open
14:34:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/194
14:36:55 <TallTed> hknublau: discussion following resolution remembered by Dimitris & Holger was not captured in minutes, but was applied when spec was edited
<TallTed> Arnaud: records are not perfect, at this point it doesn't really matter how we got where we are
<TallTed> ... important question is: what we do now?
14:38:17 <kcoyle> q+
14:38:41 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
14:38:52 <TallTed> Arnaud: two different questions: (1) do we remove stemming from spec as currently specified, (2) do we add what ericP was looking for originally
14:40:18 <TallTed> kcoyle: still hoping for examples, comparing the options
14:43:54 <kcoyle> q+
14:44:13 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
<TallTed> kcoyle: can't agree to drop sh:stem without seeing what one would have to do with sh:pattern 
14:44:52 <Arnaud> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#StemConstraintComponent
14:45:37 <TallTed> 4.5.4 sh:stem
14:47:24 <hknublau> sh:pattern "^https://www.w3.org/People/" ;
14:48:32 <hknublau> sh:or ( [ sh:pattern "..." ] [ sh:pattern "...b..." ] )
14:49:08 <hknublau> + sh:nodeKind sh:IRI ;
14:49:37 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#regex-syntax
14:54:00 <ericP> http://piratepad.net/hFXe67Dl1l
15:00:25 <ericP> compare =without stems= and
15:00:30 <ericP> =with stems as Parameters=
<TallTed> topic: AOB
<TallTed> hknublau: want to know whether if we need to publish a spec before going to CR we can publish now
<TallTed> Arnaud: not sure the spec is stable enough, still have a lot of open issues
<TallTed> hknublau: concerned we're not making enough progress and won't be able to go to CR before Xmas
<TallTed> Arnaud: that's possible
<TallTed> ... it doesn't do us any good to ignore public comments because we will have to deal with them no matter what
<TallTed> ... Best way to make progress is to make concrete proposals on how to resolve issues
15:10:09 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
15:10:09 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:10:09 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, Arnaud, ericP, kcoyle, TallTed
15:10:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:10:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
15:10:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:10:18 <RRSAgent> I see no action items