12:59:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:59:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-shapes-irc
12:59:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:59:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
12:59:18 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:59:18 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
12:59:19 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:59:19 <trackbot> Date: 14 December 2016
12:59:34 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
12:59:46 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.12.14
12:59:50 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
12:59:58 <AndyS> present+
13:00:34 <pano> pano has joined #shapes
13:02:13 <hknublau> present+
13:02:34 <Arnaud> present+
13:02:49 <ipolikoff> ipolikoff has joined #shapes
13:03:04 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #shapes
13:04:11 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS
13:04:16 <kcoyle> present+
13:04:17 <AndyS> scribe: Andy Seaborne
<AndyS> topic: Admin
13:04:22 <pano> present+
13:04:22 <Dimitris> present+
13:04:49 <TallTed> present+
13:05:58 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 30 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/30-shapes-minutes.html
13:06:16 <ericP> present+
13:06:30 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 30 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/30-shapes-minutes.html
13:07:19 <AndyS> next meeting : maybe December 21 : Arnaud and EricP can not make it.
13:07:33 <AndyS> Offer of chair?
13:08:59 <AndyS> Arnaud: take this to email
13:09:16 <AndyS> topic: Review of edits.
13:09:46 <AndyS> holger: mostly editorial MUST, SHOULD etc.
13:10:34 <AndyS> ... (1) now don't say that TTL file is normative. It is a placeholder for when the namespace is published.
13:11:17 <AndyS> ... (2) sh;in can take blank nodes as list members : symmetry with sh:value.
13:11:25 <AndyS> s/;/:/
13:13:29 <AndyS> arnaud: test - is an impl changed?
13:13:56 <Dimitris> q+
13:14:44 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
13:15:12 <ericP> an edit would be editorial if there were no credible interpretation in one version and the edit changes that interpretation
13:16:18 <AndyS> ... at the moment, this is about highlighting a change - not full CR republish. (this is advice, not full W3C process)
13:16:51 <AndyS> kcoyle: I have been suggesting editorial changes
13:17:05 <Dimitris> Karen, I will follow up on those suggestions
13:17:44 <AndyS> topic: WG Outlook
13:18:25 <AndyS> arnaud: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0045.html
13:18:50 <AndyS> ... W3C has changed.  Less keen on extensions.
13:19:26 <AndyS> ... now a AC discussion. Not discretion of team/director.
13:20:00 <AndyS> ... harder to launch a WG.
13:20:24 <AndyS> ... now prefer to incubator (in a CG)
13:21:09 <AndyS> ... if applied to shapes, we'd need more polished input.
13:21:14 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
13:22:02 <AndyS> ... need to deliver   REC by June <- PR by April <- CR by February
13:22:12 <AndyS> ... in effect one month.
13:22:48 <AndyS> ... team has reviewed the spec : core clearer, SPARQL less clear.
13:23:06 <AndyS> ... not about whether full is useful.  This is a mgt tactic
13:23:46 <AndyS> .. user feedback on comment list
13:23:51 <AndyS> ... user feedback on comment list
13:25:19 <AndyS> ... my suggestion is drop shex/shacl alignment despite all the work that has been done to align shex and shacl.
13:26:06 <AndyS> ... shex has a CG and has a published spec https://shexspec.github.io/spec
13:26:57 <AndyS> ... if don't get to REC, may change gear to move to CG - open to all - more open on process.
13:27:09 <AndyS> ... mature spec, and come back to W3C.
13:28:16 <Labra> +present labra
13:28:41 <AndyS> ... WG publishes as "WG Note"s - exports the IP.  License allows a fork of the content.
13:30:21 <marqh> marqh has joined #shapes
13:30:26 <AndyS> ... re: comments.  Now there is no LC stage, comments must be handled during WG lifetime. (This is a burden on any and all WGs now)
13:32:26 <kcoyle> q+
13:32:36 <AndyS> ... holger - can we split the spec?
13:32:43 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: separate Core from SPARQL extension
13:33:59 <AndyS> andys: how much less work would there be if split ?
13:34:31 <AndyS> arnaud: less process , less new issues (there are people waiting to comment)
13:34:39 <AndyS> ... we need full test suite
13:35:04 <AndyS> ... sets the bar higher.
13:35:28 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
13:35:39 <AndyS> ... team suggestions is driven by making the spec smaller.
13:36:11 <AndyS> kcoyle: is the issue they too intertwined?
13:37:09 <Dimitris> q+
13:37:15 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
13:38:01 <AndyS> dimitris: two docs requires some work but possible.
13:39:18 <AndyS> holger: concerned about the metamodel.  Uses same namespace.
13:39:47 <AndyS> arnaud: namespace should not be a problem.  Can add to existing namespaces.
13:40:07 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: separate Core from SPARQL extension
13:40:05 <hknublau> -1
13:40:07 <AndyS> .. minor aspect - wanted to be clear.
13:40:10 <ericP> +1
13:40:10 <AndyS> ... minor aspect - wanted to be clear.
13:40:16 <AndyS> strawpoll
13:40:17 <Labra> +1
13:40:33 <kcoyle> +.9
13:40:35 <TallTed> +0.5
13:40:37 <Dimitris> 0
13:40:41 <marqh> -0.5
13:40:48 <pano> -1
13:40:51 <TallTed> "separate Core from Extension" is a better phrasing
13:40:58 <ipolikoff> -1
13:41:26 <AndyS>  [off] irene :: present+ please
13:41:42 <hknublau> q+
13:41:48 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
13:42:01 <ericP> present+ ipolikoff
13:42:41 <AndyS> holger: more meeting time? There are proposal made, the limitation is meeting time at the moment.
13:42:51 <AndyS> q+
13:43:30 <AndyS> arnaud: already doing 2h calls - concerned if people would turn up.
13:44:57 <Arnaud> ack AndyS
13:45:59 <AndyS> andys: do more meeting prep on proposals??
13:46:18 <AndyS> arnaud: have tried this but seems people are time-short.
13:47:49 <AndyS> ... wiki proposal page is good.
13:48:06 <AndyS> ... it is not happen though (not fast enough anyway).
13:49:23 <AndyS> topic: Disposal of raised issues
13:49:27 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-215, ISSUE-216, ISSUE-217
13:49:35 <kcoyle> +1
13:49:37 <Dimitris> +1
13:50:52 <AndyS> andys: takes time to go full cycle to get confirmation from issue raiser
13:51:07 <ericP> +1
13:51:51 <AndyS> arnaud: we need to give reasonable time to confirm - that is enough
13:52:27 <AndyS> ... one way is to use github issues
13:53:09 <AndyS> ... become listed and threaded with no people-work.
13:53:35 <AndyS> ... "close" signals to commenter and they can reopen/comment more.
13:53:38 <hknublau> That would be risky IMHO. We could get flooded.
13:54:05 <AndyS> ... old way - wiki page - karen has done a lot work to keep that up to date.
13:54:13 <hknublau> +1
13:54:19 <pano> +1
13:54:22 <TallTed> +1
13:54:27 <Labra> +1
13:54:35 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-215, ISSUE-216, ISSUE-217
13:54:45 <AndyS> topic: ISSUE-211: Eliminate property constraints
13:54:57 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints
13:56:06 <AndyS> arnaud: dimitris has put a proposal togther ; holger is against.
13:57:04 <AndyS> ... ask for brief summaries from editors
13:58:14 <ericP> Dimitris: i counted and we had 5 or 7k email with an average of about 12/day.
13:58:20 <AndyS> dimitris: seems people not able to keep up with the email.
13:58:34 <AndyS> ... current design is OOP-style.
13:58:45 <AndyS> ... but RDF is not OOP
13:59:11 <AndyS> ... works for 95% but last 5% is hard -- pfps comments
13:59:28 <AndyS> ... we have two defn (section 2) anyway.
14:00:03 <AndyS> ... for timeline, we need to compromise. A change is a simpler metamodel.
14:00:27 <AndyS> ... precise and better than what we have at the moment.
14:00:36 <AndyS> ... more robust for CR
14:01:20 <kcoyle> q+
14:01:46 <AndyS> arnaud: questions on proposal?
14:01:55 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
14:02:28 <AndyS> kcoyle: like idea of moving away from OOP but can't undertand the implications and work load?
14:03:01 <ipolikoff> +q
14:03:03 <AndyS> dimitris: section 2 mostly. Remove sh:property. Can keep for compatibility else use sh:shape.
14:03:36 <Arnaud> ack ipolikoff
14:04:07 <Dimitris> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/att-0053/shape-control.text
14:04:16 <Dimitris> here is the re-write of the spec from Peter
14:04:34 <AndyS> ipolikoff: not clear as to benefits
14:05:02 <AndyS> dimitris: simplifies, so less bugs
14:05:28 <ericP> it moves us away from the OOP paradigm which is controversial when applied to RDF
14:06:17 <AndyS> arnaud: benefit is not only about convenience
14:06:50 <AndyS> ipolikoff: if more things allowed, there is more possibilities to shapes and so more testing etc
14:07:29 <AndyS> arnaud: there are different interpretations of the proposal
14:08:01 <kcoyle> q+
14:08:18 <AndyS> ... the proposal addresses the root cause of many current and future issues
14:08:26 <TallTed> q+
14:08:28 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
14:08:33 <AndyS> ... risks other issues arising
14:08:55 <AndyS> kcoyle: this week is first time OOP has been mentioned
14:09:58 <hknublau> q+
14:09:59 <AndyS> ipolikoff: not an implementation restriction
14:10:12 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
14:10:58 <AndyS> TallTed: while don't have complete comprehension - does seem to be an improvement
14:11:36 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
14:11:38 <AndyS> ... users will write all possible things a spec allows. Need to handle even "strange" cases.
14:12:13 <AndyS> holger: not an OOP design - but can be understood by people with an OO background.
14:12:42 <AndyS> ... 211 looses this way to understand SHACL.
14:13:34 <AndyS> holger: process issue - stable design for 6months now.  Some feedback, some implementation.
14:13:56 <AndyS> ... no feedback suggests this change.
14:14:16 <AndyS> ... high risk to make this change.
14:14:42 <AndyS> ... 5% cases required one sentence to address in current design
14:15:20 <AndyS> ... sh:property changes many existing shapes already written
14:15:37 <AndyS> ... metamodel - had a long discussion already
14:15:57 <AndyS> ... we had an agreement
14:17:07 <AndyS> ... There are differences:  shapes can be closed, property constraints can't be.
14:17:52 <AndyS> ... this is undoing that agreement which was already a compromise.
14:19:29 <AndyS> ... implementation impact - performance and complexity
14:20:51 <AndyS> arnaud: on one point - process - valid concern about time - many new issues is grounds for revisiting to see if there is a better way.
14:21:08 <hknublau> q+
14:21:09 <Dimitris> q+
14:21:26 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
14:22:30 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
14:22:34 <Dimitris> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/att-0053/shape-control.text
14:22:49 <AndyS> holger: another way to explain SHACL ... useful input ... not clear there is simplicity
14:23:11 <AndyS> ... no explanatory prose
14:23:19 <AndyS> ... no examples
14:23:26 <marqh> q+
14:23:31 <Arnaud> ack marqh
14:24:16 <AndyS> marqh: tend towards evolution rather revolution
14:24:41 <AndyS> ... useful input to give a formal description - can we use that material is current spec?
14:25:01 <AndyS> ... need more sense of why this is better at this moment
14:25:37 <AndyS> arnaud: better to make a decision at this point
14:26:07 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-211 adopting a variation of Peter's suggestion as described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0021.html . The new metamodel diagram: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/att-0040/diagram.png . A re-write of the spec from Peter for his original proposal is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/att-0053/shape-control.text , the proposed variat[CUT]
14:26:14 <hknublau> -1
14:26:23 <kcoyle> +1
14:26:27 <Dimitris> +1
14:26:28 <ericP> +1
14:26:31 <Labra> +1
14:26:32 <marqh> -0.5
14:26:33 <ipolikoff> -.9
14:26:37 <TallTed> +0.8
14:26:41 <pano> -1
14:26:54 <AndyS> -0.5
14:27:38 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-211 as already discussed (extensively) and too late for such a fundamental change, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0117.html
14:27:46 <hknublau> +1
14:28:08 <kcoyle> -0
14:28:13 <ipolikoff> +1
14:28:19 <ericP> -.5
14:28:23 <marqh> 0
14:28:26 <AndyS> 0
14:28:35 <Dimitris> -.5
14:28:36 <TallTed> -0.5
14:28:38 <pano> +1
14:28:40 <Labra> -0.5
14:29:17 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-211 as already discussed (extensively) and too late for such a fundamental change, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0117.html
14:30:06 <AndyS> topic: ISSUE-197
14:30:27 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-197:_Defined
14:31:00 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
<ericP> scribe: Eric Prud'hommeaux
14:31:18 <ericP> hknublau: i agreed with trying to avoid the sense of definition
14:31:32 <ericP> ... but when someone puts a term into an RDF graph, this is at most a declaration
14:32:06 <kcoyle> q+
14:32:13 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
14:32:19 <ericP> Arnaud: there aren't mamy votes on the associated proposal but hknublau says we can close the issue as is
14:32:22 <kcoyle> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0149.html
14:32:31 <ericP> kcoyle: i had questions which i don't believe were answered
14:33:11 <ericP> ... i pointed out places where i thought that "define" was being use incorrectly.
14:33:37 <ericP> ... i don't know if those changes got made but there were sentences i didn't understand.
14:33:54 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-197 as resolved by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0130.html
14:34:01 <hknublau> +1
14:34:10 <ericP> hknublau: i've followed the spirit of karen's advice; not sure if i responded.
14:34:25 <kcoyle> +.5 (I'll check later)
14:34:26 <hknublau> (I will check her email again)
14:34:53 <pano> +1
14:35:07 <ipolikoff> +1
14:35:20 <ipolikoff> have to leave now, sorry
14:35:20 <TallTed> +1
14:35:37 <Dimitris> +1
14:35:58 <Labra> +
14:36:02 <Labra> +0
14:36:22 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-197 as resolved by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0130.html
14:36:46 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-209
14:36:46 <trackbot> issue-209 -- What is a shape -- open
14:36:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/209
14:37:01 <ericP> Arnaud: we've discussed this in different ways.
14:37:14 <Dimitris> q+
14:37:24 <ericP> ... it keeps popping back up when someone says the doc is not clear on this.
14:37:50 <ericP> hknublau: we're saying that a shape is a node.
14:38:00 <ericP> ... we're doing the same thing for every other term.
14:38:22 <ericP> ... if we say "a shape is a resource", i.e. that it lives in the real world, we'd have to do that everywhere
14:38:42 <ericP> ... pfps proposed the terminology we use
14:38:58 <ericP> ... shapes can have values while resources cannot
14:39:23 <ericP> Arnaud: we don't have to wait for pfps to bless our resolutions before closing issues.
14:39:36 <ericP> ... but it's better if we hear some closure
14:39:43 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
14:39:53 <ericP> ... he's demonstrated that he'll scream if we don't address his issues
14:40:19 <ericP> Dimitris: we have to restructure section 2 anyways
14:40:39 <ericP> ... so we need to redefine a shape anyways
14:40:52 <ericP> hknublau: but that's issue-212, removing focus constraint
14:41:52 <ericP> Arnaud, should we try to close issue-212 first?
14:42:03 <ericP> hknublau: won't change anything
14:42:19 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-209 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bec7b6852529acc80954dbc38cf4e435861238a2
14:42:22 <hknublau> +1
14:43:36 <ericP> kcoyle: not sure how to vote on this before issue-212
14:44:13 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-212
14:44:13 <trackbot> issue-212 -- Property constraints and focus node constraints -- open
14:44:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/212
14:44:39 <ericP> hknublau: we may have made an editorial mistake in introducing "focus node constraint"
14:45:03 <ericP> ... in the old design, we had a sh:constraint property linking a node to a constraint
14:45:24 <ericP> ... we didn't discard focus node constraint
14:45:50 <ericP> ... there's a section on it but it's basically emtpy so it could be merged with shape
14:45:59 <ericP> ... folks just need to be aware that shapes double as constraints
14:46:06 <marqh> q+
14:46:47 <Arnaud> ack marqh
14:46:53 <ericP> kcoyle: apart from getting rid of focus node constraint, i think that shapes should not be constraints
14:47:19 <ericP> marqh: trying to sift through the doc and haven't found an answer to "what's a focus node?"
14:47:37 <ericP> kcoyle: maybe in 2.2?
14:47:44 <Arnaud> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#focusNodes
14:47:58 <ericP> hknublau: that's the official definition [reads]
14:48:11 <ericP> ... later on we say how it can be derived using targets, etc.
14:48:36 <ericP> ... there's not much more we can say about it; it's basically a random node that is a parameter to validation
14:49:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-212 as resolved by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0129.html and replace the term "focus node constraint" with "shape" throughout the document.
14:49:28 <ericP> marqh: the definition of focus node constraint doesn't jump out at me as clear.
14:49:34 <ericP> ... i support the proposal
14:49:35 <hknublau> +1
14:49:50 <kcoyle> -.5
14:49:50 <marqh> +1
14:49:51 <Dimitris> -.5
14:49:52 <pano> +1
14:50:01 <TallTed> +1
14:50:45 <ericP> kcoyle: will there be more text added to Shape to cover this?
14:51:17 <marqh> q+
14:51:22 <ericP> hknublau: i think we can restructure this section by describing the commonalities, e.g. every constraint has a severity and a message
14:51:35 <Arnaud> ack marqh
14:52:14 <ericP> marqh: is it worth opening an issue with the scribed two-line summary?
14:52:50 <ericP> Arnaud: agreed. maybe in the resolution for issue-209, we can capture hknublau's text
14:53:25 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-212 as resolved by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0129.html and replace the term "focus node constraint" with "shape" throughout the document.
14:53:45 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-209
14:53:46 <trackbot> issue-209 -- What is a shape -- open
14:53:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/209
14:54:58 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-209 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bec7b6852529acc80954dbc38cf4e435861238a2 plus restructure of Focus node section by describing the commonalities, e.g. every constraint has a severity and a message
14:55:53 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-209 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bec7b6852529acc80954dbc38cf4e435861238a2 plus restructure of Focus node and Shapes sections by describing the commonalities, e.g. every constraint has a severity and a message
14:56:13 <hknublau> +1
14:56:18 <kcoyle> 0
14:56:51 <pano> +1
14:56:57 <TallTed> +0.5
14:57:11 <Dimitris> 0
14:57:23 <Labra> 0
14:58:33 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-209 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bec7b6852529acc80954dbc38cf4e435861238a2 plus restructure of Focus node and Shapes sections by describing the commonalities, e.g. every constraint has a severity
14:58:37 <ericP> Arnaud: we can examine the implementation when the editors summarize their edits
15:00:10 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
15:00:10 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:00:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AndyS, hknublau, Arnaud, kcoyle, pano, Dimitris, TallTed, ericP, ipolikoff, labra, marqh
15:00:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:00:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
15:00:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:00:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items