13:00:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
13:00:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/04-shapes-irc
13:00:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:00:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
13:00:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:00:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:00:46 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:00:46 <trackbot> Date: 04 January 2017
13:00:47 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
13:01:47 <AndyS> present+
13:01:48 <hknublau> present+
13:01:57 <simonstey> present+
13:01:57 <Nicky> present+
13:02:09 <Dimitris> present+
13:03:09 <dallemang> dallemang has joined #shapes
13:05:09 <TallTed> present+
13:10:51 <hknublau> (Introductions by Nicky and Dean)
13:11:03 <ipolikoff> ipolikoff has joined #shapes
13:13:21 <AndyS> scribenick: dallenmang
13:14:27 <AndyS> scribe: Dean Allemang
13:15:06 <dallemang> hknublau: Working Group Outlook from Irene
13:15:09 <Dimitris> topic: working group outlook
13:15:18 <TallTed> s/dallenmang/dallemang/
13:15:18 <dallemang> ipolikoff: Talked to Ralph Swick and Philip ?? and Jeff Philip
13:15:44 <dallemang> ipolikoff: Process for extension is more difficult than it used to be ...
13:15:58 <dallemang> W3C can do this up to 6 months without a vote process
13:16:30 <dallemang> ipolikoff: We can get this, but is not guaranteed.  Mgmt wants to be assured we have resources to finish the work
13:17:50 <dallemang> ipolikoff: Make sure there are two independent implementations and test suite.  Sometimes extension is specifically for test suite.  ...
13:18:35 <hknublau> @dean the ... need to be at the start of a line (I think)
13:18:37 <dallemang> They will discuss and decide during January.   ...
13:18:44 <dallemang> Thanks
13:19:09 <dallemang> ipolikoff: Discussion with TBL, to figure out how to make it succeed.
13:19:44 <dallemang> ... there are new members tot he group that Irene expects to see here
13:20:19 <dallemang> ... possibly bringing in Mayo with a different rep
13:21:29 <simonstey> +q
13:21:34 <dallemang> hknublau: Last meeting before the holiday was unproductive, controversial discussions were not resolved.
13:21:44 <dallemang> ... today's agenda attempts to address that.
13:21:58 <simonstey> -q
13:22:32 <ipolikoff> Just a correction on the name. The other director from W3C we had calls with is Philippe Le Hegaret
13:23:11 <TallTed> s/Philip ?? and/Philippe Le Hegaret and/
13:23:16 <hknublau> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 14 Dec 2016 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-shapes-minutes.html
13:23:27 <AndyS> +1
13:23:32 <TallTed> +1
13:23:44 <ipolikoff> It was with Philippe Le Hegaret  and Ralph Swick
13:24:01 <hknublau> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 14 Dec 2016 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-shapes-minutes.html
13:24:10 <TallTed> s/and Jeff Philip//
13:25:16 <dallemang> AndyS: Give some perspective on current status of the group for new returned people dallemang  and Nicky )
13:25:47 <dallemang> hknublau: for Language Features and Tech Details, the current spec is about where it is.  Missing is precision and formality
13:26:09 <dallemang> hknublau: ... time is limited, we need to try to reach CR in the next month (or a couple more with extension)
13:26:29 <dallemang> ... without extension, CR has to be done by end of Jan
13:26:45 <dallemang> ... original timeline ends in June 2017
13:27:14 <dallemang> ... SPARQL point in particular (ch. 5) into a separate doc
13:28:49 <dallemang> ... SPARQL-based constraint compoinents, and (one other -what was it?)  are the basics of the spec (in hknublau 's opinion)
13:29:19 <dallemang> Dimitris: We are close to being done, but hknublau and Dimitris  don't have experience with spec writing to finish teh details that are needed
13:30:08 <dallemang> +q
13:30:50 <dallemang> ... Dimitris has a proposal to simply things, which is some of our discussion points today
13:31:12 <ipolikoff> holger proposed splitting chp 7,8 and 9 into a separate document that may or may not become a recommendation. But keep ch 6 (SPARQL constraints) in the main spec
13:31:33 <dallemang> -q
13:31:34 <ipolikoff> Dimitris is proposing splitting core from SPARQL
13:32:11 <dallemang> Dimitris: at the start, he wanted SPARQL as part of the main spec, but now sees two docs as a better chance for success.
13:32:22 <simonstey> +q
13:32:39 <hknublau> ack s
13:34:00 <dallemang> simonstey: Does this splitting  really help our chances?
13:34:18 <Dimitris> q+
13:34:25 <hknublau> ack D
13:34:27 <ipolikoff> +q
13:35:34 <dallemang> +q
13:35:49 <hknublau> ack ipolikoff
13:36:53 <dallemang> ipolikoff: hknublau's proposal is conservative; remove ch. 7-9 into a Note, lighten the spec and the workload
13:37:12 <dallemang> ... issues on our list are overwhelmingly on the core, not on SPARQL
13:37:52 <dallemang> ... prefer to go with hknublau 's proposal, cut things down, 7-9 to Note, 6 remains, and see what happens in the CR
13:38:00 <hknublau> ack dallemang
13:38:31 <hknublau> dallemang: I agree with Irene
13:39:07 <hknublau> ... Have many use cases, FIBO etc, I need a standard way to speak about the shapes of my data.
13:39:56 <hknublau> ... As a developer of semantic web standards, I prefer to write in SPARQL, RDF native. If chapter 5 would go away it would seriously damage our use cases.
13:40:10 <dallemang> dallemang: FIBO, GACS and SWISSPROT
13:40:37 <dallemang> Dimitris: clarifies that there is no proposal to throw 5-6 away, but put into a separate doc
13:40:45 <dallemang> ... this would be a different CR
13:41:04 <dallemang> TallTed: Goal is "standards track" - first as note, track to becoming its own CR
13:41:51 <dallemang> ipolikoff: likely scenario is at least one (core) goes to CR.   Then SPARQL part becomes a Note
13:43:01 <dallemang> ... only reason to split is that we think that 1-4 will be successful, then 5-6 is a separate doc (maybe note, maybe CR).  We want it a CR, but it might end up as a note.
13:43:55 <dallemang> hknublau: SPARQL depends on core in current writeup
13:44:15 <dallemang> ... If we split after section 4, making 5-6 a separate doc, so that it could make it on its own.
13:44:30 <simonstey> +q
13:44:32 <dallemang> ... thinks that core has more problems than SPARQL
13:44:50 <hknublau> ack s
13:44:55 <dallemang> ipolikoff: thinks here customers are more intersted in SPARQL than in core (slightly)
13:44:59 <dallemang> dallemang: that is my interest
13:45:08 <dallemang> simonstey: core is a subset (functionality wise) of SPARQ
13:45:13 <dallemang> +q
13:45:35 <dallemang> simonstey: everything in core can be done in a SPARQL that does the same thing
13:46:06 <dallemang> ... so we should aim at having SPARQL accepted
13:46:35 <hknublau> Summarize: 3 documents: SHACL Core (CR), SHACL SPARQL (5-6, CR), SHACL Full (7-9)
13:46:53 <simonstey> +q
13:46:57 <simonstey> ack dallemang
13:47:01 <hknublau> ack s
13:47:27 <Nicky> q+
13:47:34 <dallemang> dallemang: the spec is written the other way around; with "core" as the center, and SPARQL written as a commentary on that
13:47:44 <dallemang> simonstey: that was originally becuase we thought of multiple execution engines
13:48:24 <Dimitris> q+
13:48:27 <dallemang> ... build semantics on SPARQL, which is not hte same as SPARQL constraints
13:48:41 <TallTed> q+
13:49:08 <hknublau> ack Nicky
13:49:09 <dallemang> ... that story would be coherent, but it isn't how the group's work developed
13:49:55 <dallemang> Nicky:  is it right to see 5-6 as an implementation of 1-4?
13:49:56 <hknublau> ack Dimitris
13:50:51 <dallemang> Dimitris: ch 4 is some built-in constraints,  can they be done in pure sparql?
13:51:41 <dallemang> ... If we want SPARQL stand-alone, then we'll have to repeat parts of sections 1-3 to define the language (e.g., target, constraint, shape)
13:51:49 <dallemang> ...not so easy to have these as separate docs
13:52:08 <dallemang> ... do we need 4 docs?  One is core definitions, one for current core, one for SPARQL, and one for Full?
13:52:19 <dallemang> ipolikoff: asks for clarification of Dimitris ' breakdown?
13:52:47 <dallemang> Dimitris: Sections 1-3 in doc 1, 4 in second doc, 5-6 in third doc, 7-9 in notes
13:53:30 <hknublau> ack TallTed
13:54:04 <dallemang> TallTed: there is a prejudice against RDF and SPARQL, even where you wouldn't expect it.  That's a large piece of how we got to where we are.
13:54:07 <Dimitris> if we want both shacl full and shacl core as standalone language then we need more documents: shacl: sec 1-3, shacl core sect 4, shacl sparql/full: sec 5+
13:54:29 <dallemang> ... In a sense it gives a draft implementation, but there is "fear of contamination"
13:54:41 <dallemang> ... Starting from zero, if we started right now, maybe not true.
13:55:22 <dallemang> dallemang: This is apparent in the spec, where SPARQL is a possible implemention not definition
13:55:45 <Dimitris> but this is a very big load, shacl core (sec 1-4) and shacl sparql/full (sec 5+) that is based on core is more feasible and allows other langs like js
13:55:48 <dallemang> TallTed: the core could be SPARQL , but extensions could be in a new, hot language that isn't necessariliy SPARQL-based
13:56:00 <dallemang> ... how do you leave that extension path open?
13:56:43 <dallemang> hknublau: Should we move forward on acting on one of these segmentation proposals?
13:57:30 <hknublau> STRAW POLL: Create two CR documents: SHACL Core (1-4) and SHACL SPARQL (5,6), and one WG Note (SHACL Full, 7-9)
13:58:12 <ipolikoff> i+q
13:58:20 <ipolikoff> +q
13:59:37 <hknublau> STRAW POLL: Option 1: Create two CR documents: SHACL Core (1-4) and SHACL SPARQL (5,6), and one WG Note (SHACL Full, 7-9)
14:00:11 <hknublau> Option 2: Create one CR document: SHACL Core + SPARQL (1-6), WG Note (SHACL Full 7-9)
14:00:12 <dallemang> ipolikoff: It seems that Dimitris feels the need for a defintional umbrella, so that core and SPARQL can both draw on that.
14:00:30 <dallemang> ipolikoff: ask hknublau whether he thinks this is needed?
14:00:35 <dallemang> hknublau: this is almost an implementation detail
14:01:05 <simonstey> 1) 0 2) 1
14:01:08 <dallemang> hknublau: we can copy-paste the bits that are needed for whichever ones succeed
14:01:15 <Dimitris> splitting in 3 rec docs would be more risky
14:01:44 <dallemang> ipolikoff: has concern about having lots of documents
14:01:53 <dallemang> +q
14:02:11 <hknublau> ack ipolikoff
14:02:14 <hknublau> ack d
14:02:51 <dallemang> Dimitris suggested "Dimitris: Sections 1-3 in doc 1, 4 in second doc, 5-6 in third doc, 7-9 in notes"
14:03:04 <hknublau> Option 3: Sections 1-3 in doc 1, 4 in second doc, 5-6 in third doc, 7-9 in notes
14:03:18 <dallemang> Should that be a poll option?
14:03:23 <dallemang> Dimitris: No
14:03:52 <Dimitris> a) +1 b) -0.5
14:04:03 <ipolikoff> 1) 0.5  2) 1
14:04:23 <hknublau> 1) 0   2) 1
14:04:30 <dallemang> dallemang: Can someone with more W3C experience comment on risks of having multiple docs?
14:04:48 <Nicky> a) +1 2) 0
14:04:49 <dallemang> AndyS: Change to rec track doc is a charter change; is this permissible?
14:05:10 <dallemang> ipolikoff:  She believes that this was suggested during last meeting by Arnaud1
14:05:32 <dallemang> TallTed: Doesn't think this is a charter change
14:05:32 <Dimitris> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter
14:05:56 <dallemang> ... this is timeboxed, not project completion boxed.
14:06:23 <dallemang> ... Multiple docs is a nightmare.  Changes in one has to be reflected in all of them, even when content is identical.
14:06:43 <dallemang> ... changes that seem tiny turn into big ripples
14:07:22 <dallemang> 1) 0    2) 1
14:09:59 <TallTed> a: +1   b: +0.5   (really, I'm in favor of whatever the editors feel is achievable)
14:10:00 <ipolikoff> agree with Andy. In the end, it is whatever editors think is best
14:11:31 <hknublau> PROPOSAL: Split sections 7-9 into a separate document, likely a WG Note.
14:11:45 <ipolikoff> dallemang: wants SPARQL part
14:11:52 <hknublau> +0.5
14:12:11 <simonstey> +1
14:12:28 <ipolikoff> +1
14:12:32 <Dimitris> +1
14:13:01 <dallemang> +1
14:13:02 <ipolikoff> AndyS; we should let editors discuss and come back with a joint recommendation
14:13:46 <ipolikoff> hknublau: looked through the spec and convinced that splitting 7- 9 is low impact
14:14:19 <TallTed> +1
14:14:20 <ipolikoff> dallemang: agrees that splitting 7-9 is easy and a good step
14:14:47 <hknublau> RESOLVED: Split sections 7-9 into a separate document, likely a WG Note.
14:15:16 <simonstey> I can do that
14:16:15 <ipolikoff> hknublau: add something about rules to the WG Note
14:16:30 <hknublau> PROPOSAL: Make Simon an editor of the new WG note (with Holger)
14:16:33 <hknublau> +1
14:16:40 <dallemang> dallemang: is very strongly in favor of having rules written into the Note
14:16:45 <simonstey> +1
14:16:47 <ipolikoff> dallemang: supports adding a non normative section about rules
14:16:47 <Dimitris> +1
14:16:48 <TallTed> +1
14:16:53 <dallemang> +1
14:16:57 <ipolikoff> +1
14:17:04 <hknublau> RESOLVED: Make Simon an editor of the new WG note (with Holger)
14:17:35 <ipolikoff> concerned about adding anything new given that we are out of time
14:18:52 <ipolikoff> simonstey: if there is something about rules that is already written, we could lift it without much work
14:19:24 <simonstey> s/simonstey: if/dallemang: if/
14:22:11 <ipolikoff> hknublau: ISSUE-211, formal language is precise, but doesn't want to loose more informal descriptions, make them non normative
14:23:14 <ipolikoff> hknublau: two separate topics: formal language and simplifying metamodel, they are currently 2 different issues
14:23:27 <dallemang> +q
14:23:33 <hknublau> PROPOSAL: Reopen ISSUE-211
14:23:36 <ipolikoff> hknublau: proposes re-opening Issue-211
14:23:41 <hknublau> +1
14:23:47 <TallTed> +1
14:23:48 <hknublau> ack dallemang
14:23:57 <simonstey> +1
14:23:58 <Dimitris> +1
14:25:05 <ipolikoff> dallemang: concerned about the editorial work that would happen with the change of the metamodel, it is unlikely we have time
14:25:27 <ipolikoff> +.05
14:25:43 <dallemang> +1
14:25:49 <hknublau> RESOLVED: Reopen ISSUE-211
14:26:02 <ipolikoff> hknublau: this is a vote to re-open, not the vote for how to resolve it
14:28:03 <ipolikoff> hknublau: keep the prose as informative description, but also develop formal normative description
14:28:35 <ipolikoff> dallemang: isn't it what provenance WG did?
14:29:24 <ipolikoff> do the editors feel they have sufficient skills in writing in this mathematical style?
14:30:01 <ipolikoff> TallTed: would not recommend following provo example, it took a lot of work
14:30:05 <Dimitris> q+
14:30:13 <hknublau> ack Dimitris
14:31:15 <ipolikoff> Dimitris: thinks that change to the metamodel (Issue-211) should be resolved before it is decided to change the style of writing
14:31:41 <simonstey> +q
14:32:01 <ipolikoff> Dimitris: if we use Peter's writing, we need to confirm that he is OK with it
14:32:15 <simonstey> q-
14:32:31 <ipolikoff> AndyS: because he sent it to the list, it should not be an issue
14:32:33 <simonstey> +q
14:32:38 <hknublau> ack Zakim
14:32:52 <hknublau> ack simonstey
14:32:53 <ipolikoff> Dimitris: He sent it to me personally, I sent it to the list
14:33:52 <ipolikoff> simonstey: agrees that we can't use Peter's writing without his explicit permission
14:33:55 <dallemang> +q
14:34:30 <dallemang> -q
14:35:11 <ipolikoff> +q
14:35:59 <simonstey> +q
14:36:05 <hknublau> ack ipolikoff
14:37:08 <simonstey> q-
14:38:52 <AndyS> q+
14:39:17 <hknublau> ack AndyS
14:39:37 <ipolikoff> hknublau: the only reason we are using the current style is because this was the previous editor's preference and also preferences of other WG members
14:40:12 <ipolikoff> AndyS: can Dimitris ask Peter to send his proposal to the mailing list?
14:40:25 <ipolikoff> Dimitris: I prefer someone else to do this
14:40:49 <ipolikoff> AndyS: I will ask Peter
14:42:22 <ipolikoff> dallemang: let's tackle issues
14:42:39 <hknublau> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-179 as out of scope (and out of time), e.g. leave it to Community Groups
14:42:57 <ipolikoff> +1
14:43:47 <hknublau> +1
14:44:12 <Nicky> +1
14:44:16 <simonstey> +1
14:44:23 <ipolikoff> TallTed: not out of scope, but very much out of time, in favor
14:44:30 <TallTed> +1   (fits with UI, so not out of scope, but definitely out of time)
14:44:38 <hknublau> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-179 as out of scope (and out of time), e.g. leave it to Community Groups
14:45:05 <hknublau> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-182 as addressed by the current spec (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Oct/0056.html
14:45:26 <simonstey> issue-182
14:45:26 <trackbot> issue-182 -- Clarifications needed to section 3.0 -- open
14:45:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/182
14:45:33 <hknublau> +1
14:45:45 <TallTed> +1
14:45:53 <dallemang> +1
14:45:57 <ipolikoff> +1
14:46:17 <dallemang> dallemang has joined #shapes
14:46:29 <hknublau> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-182 as addressed by the current spec (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Oct/0056.html
14:46:31 <simonstey> -0.5
14:47:51 <ipolikoff> simonstey: we should not require that all validation results are required
14:48:24 <ipolikoff> hknublau: this was addressed
14:48:27 <simonstey> +1
14:50:12 <ipolikoff> hknublau: there is a branch, wants to make it into the main document
14:50:38 <ipolikoff> hknublau: it has a lot of simplifications, did anyone look at it?
14:51:02 <simonstey> I haven't looked at it
14:51:35 <ipolikoff> simonstey: postpone it to the next meeting to give people a chance to look at it
14:52:38 <hknublau> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-194 deleting sh:stem as rather useless (it is a short cut for sh:pattern which supports the use of regular expressions)
14:52:43 <simonstey> issue-194
14:52:44 <trackbot> issue-194 -- stems in value sets -- open
14:52:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/194
14:53:42 <hknublau> +1
14:54:07 <ipolikoff> +.8
14:54:25 <simonstey> 0
14:54:33 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#StemConstraintComponent
14:54:37 <simonstey> +q
14:54:57 <hknublau> ack simonstey
14:55:37 <Nicky> +1
14:55:58 <ipolikoff> there are 3 proposals: keep as-is, drop, do something more comprehensive
14:55:59 <TallTed> +1
14:56:14 <ipolikoff> we are voting for drop right now
14:56:41 <hknublau> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-194 deleting sh:stem as rather useless (it is a short cut for sh:pattern which supports the use of regular expressions)
14:58:10 <ipolikoff> hknublau: what are the next step regarding the chair?
15:03:18 <ipolikoff> TallTed: W3C needs to appoint the rep that doesn't have conflicts
15:03:39 <Dimitris> Dimitris has left #shapes
15:03:54 <hknublau> trackbot, end meeting
15:03:54 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:03:54 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AndyS, hknublau, simonstey, Nicky, Dimitris, TallTed, .05, .8
15:04:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:04:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/04-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
15:04:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:04:03 <RRSAgent> I see no action items