13:02:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
13:02:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-shapes-irc
13:02:31 <hknublau> trackbot, start meeting
13:02:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:02:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
13:02:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:02:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:02:36 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:02:36 <trackbot> Date: 18 January 2017
13:02:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:02:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:02:42 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:02:42 <trackbot> Date: 18 January 2017
13:02:43 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:03:17 <TallTed> chair: ipolikoff
13:03:27 <hknublau> present+
13:03:31 <TallTed> present+
13:03:33 <dallemang> dallemang has joined #shapes
13:03:38 <ipolikoff> present+
13:03:39 <dallemang> present+
13:03:39 <Nicky> present+
13:03:43 <hknublau> scribenick: hknublau
13:03:57 <ipolikoff> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 11 Jan 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-shapes-minutes.html
13:04:03 <hknublau> +1
13:04:05 <Nicky> +1
13:04:09 <AndyS> present+ (for a short time)
13:04:15 <dallemang> 0
13:04:26 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 11 Jan 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-shapes-minutes.html
13:05:08 <hknublau> PROPOSAL: Open ISSUE-218
13:05:12 <hknublau> +1
13:05:54 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Open ISSUE-218
13:06:21 <ipolikoff> +1
13:06:23 <TallTed> +1
13:06:29 <Nicky> +1
13:06:45 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Open ISSUE-218
13:08:27 <dallemang> Where do we see the draft that Holger is talking about?
13:08:40 <hknublau> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
13:09:16 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-203 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0112.html
13:09:17 <hknublau> hknublau: Summary of new edits: better structure, separation of syntax and semantic rules, new metamodel and terminology changes
13:10:26 <hknublau> +1
13:10:50 <TallTed> +1
13:10:55 <Nicky> obsolete +!
13:10:56 <Nicky> +1
13:11:14 <dallemang> +1
13:11:43 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-203 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0112.html and obsolete
13:13:12 <hknublau> topic: ISSUE-68
13:13:12 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-68 defining pre-binding using eval(D(G), Replace(PrjMap(X), μ)) as described in https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html
13:14:40 <hknublau> AndyS: Issue is how to set variables in SPARQL queries.
13:15:16 <dallemang> +q
13:15:25 <pano> pano has joined #shapes
13:15:34 <hknublau> ... EXISTS uses something similar. EXISTS is a FILTER function that checks whether the sub-query using the values from the outside has solutions.
13:16:04 <hknublau> ... Issues were reported regarding EXISTS (HK: and a CG was created in response).
13:16:41 <hknublau> ... Proposal consists of three parts (as written down in the linked document)
13:16:54 <pano> present+
13:17:10 <hknublau> dallemang: How would it differ from VALUES?
13:17:34 <hknublau> AndyS: VALUES is just a block of data. It's close to Peter's proposal.
13:17:48 <hknublau> ... that proposal works for less cases, because values are injected into the top level only.
13:18:12 <hknublau> ... my approach supports nested features such as UNIONs, close to replacement.
13:18:59 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-68 defining pre-binding using eval(D(G), Replace(PrjMap(X), μ)) as described in https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html
13:19:05 <hknublau> +1
13:19:07 <TallTed> +1
13:19:09 <dallemang> +1
13:19:12 <AndyS> +1
13:19:35 <ipolikoff> 0
13:19:49 <pano> 0
13:19:58 <Nicky> 0
13:21:39 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-68 defining pre-binding using eval(D(G), Replace(PrjMap(X), μ)) as described in https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html
13:22:17 <hknublau> topic: 170
13:22:40 <TallTed> s/topic: 170/topic: ISSUE-170/
13:22:40 <hknublau> I have deleted all uses of EXISTS, so this can be closed.
13:22:44 <TallTed> issue-170?
13:22:44 <trackbot> issue-170 -- SPARQL specifies a different reading for exists and blank nodes than needed for SHACL -- open
13:22:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/170
13:22:47 <hknublau> * cheers
13:22:47 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-170 since EXISTS has been removed, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Jan/0021.html
13:22:54 <hknublau> +1
13:22:55 <ipolikoff> +1
13:22:57 <dallemang> +1
13:23:00 <TallTed> +1
13:23:02 <pano> +1
13:23:05 <Nicky> +1
13:23:18 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-170 since EXISTS has been removed, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Jan/0021.html
13:23:45 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-204 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0113.html and a number of subsequent edits that make the issue obsolete
13:23:58 <dallemang> +1
13:24:01 <hknublau> +1
13:24:05 <ipolikoff> +1
13:24:06 <Nicky> Obsolete +1
13:24:19 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-204 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0113.html and a number of subsequent edits that make the issue obsolete
13:24:42 <pano> +1
13:24:47 <TallTed> +1
13:24:52 <ipolikoff> Discuss ISSUE-181
13:25:50 <hknublau> ipolikoff: This was brought up by Jose. Proposal there that slightly changes the language.
13:26:25 <hknublau> ... implementers would have the option to stop
13:26:47 <hknublau> dallemang: This struck me as the right thing to do when I read the doc.
13:27:36 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-181:_partial_validation
13:27:36 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-181 adopting proposal 2 in the wiki - engines must be able to return all results
13:27:49 <dallemang> +1
13:27:52 <Nicky> +1
13:27:56 <pano> +1
13:27:57 <ipolikoff> +1
13:27:58 <AndyS> +1
13:28:03 <hknublau> +1
13:28:04 <TallTed> +1
13:28:17 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-181 adopting proposal 2 in the wiki - engines must be able to return all results
13:28:56 <ipolikoff> topic: ISSUE-217
13:29:05 <TallTed> issue-217
13:29:05 <trackbot> issue-217 -- Further clean up of paths versus predicate -- open
13:29:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/217
13:29:07 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-217:_Path_vs_predicate_clean_up
13:30:30 <hknublau> Advantages of 1a:  Potentially easier to understand for end users Easier to query in cases where we are only interested in property declarations: { ?node sh:predicate ?predicate } versus { ?node sh:path ?path . FILTER isIRI(?path) } Better suitable for sh:Parameter declarations (which do not accept paths) - sh:Parameter is a subclass of sh:PropertyShape. This syntax has been in production for a long time. All examples, tools, tests and tutorials will co[CUT]
13:31:07 <dallemang> +q
13:32:47 <hknublau> Advantages of 1b:  Potentially cleaner because properties are just a special kind of path Easier to ask "is this node a property constraint?": FILTER EXISTS { ?node sh:path ?any } versus FILTER EXISTS { ?node sh:path|sh:predicate ?any }
13:33:39 <hknublau> ack dallemang
13:33:50 <TallTed> q+
13:34:07 <hknublau> dallemang: Anecdote from provo, it had two ways of doing something.
13:34:46 <hknublau> ... Some people thought this made the structure annoyingly verbose because you always had to distinguish between the complex structure or the simple structure.
13:35:11 <hknublau> ... They always wanted the more powerful structure.
13:35:47 <ipolikoff> ack TallTed
13:36:21 <hknublau> TallTed: Easier to understand leaves both predicate and path, which may be more confusing.
13:37:19 <hknublau> ... My preference would be to go with sh:path
13:37:52 <hknublau> ipolikoff: 1b is delete sh:predicate altogether.
13:39:05 <hknublau> dallemang: leaning towards 1b
13:39:53 <hknublau> dallemang: danger of misunderstanding is contained.
13:41:22 <ipolikoff> STRAWPOLL: proposal 1a and proposal 1b
13:41:43 <hknublau> 1a) 0.5  1b) -0.5
13:41:43 <TallTed> s/and/vs/
13:41:58 <dallemang> 1a) -1   1b) +1
13:42:01 <TallTed> 1a: -1   1b: +1
13:42:03 <AndyS> (1a) 0 ; (1b) -0.5
13:42:06 <Nicky> 1a) 0 1b) 1+
13:44:43 <pano> 1a) 0.5 1b) 0
13:46:02 <Nicky> Nicky has joined #shapes
13:46:14 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-217 using proposal 1b
13:46:39 <TallTed> +1
13:46:47 <hknublau> 0
13:46:49 <pano> 0
13:46:53 <ipolikoff> 0
13:46:59 <Nicky> +1
13:47:10 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-217 using proposal 1b
13:47:45 <ipolikoff> topic ISSUE-94
13:47:54 <TallTed> issue-94?
13:47:54 <trackbot> issue-94 -- Should RDF syntax requirements be separated from SHACL semantics -- open
13:47:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/94
13:47:55 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-94:_separate_syntax_and_semantics
13:48:18 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-94 as obsolete
13:48:23 <hknublau> +1
13:48:25 <pano> +1
13:48:26 <dallemang> +1
13:48:26 <Nicky> +1
13:48:27 <TallTed> +1
13:48:28 <ipolikoff> +1
13:48:46 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-94 as obsolete
13:49:12 <ipolikoff> Discuss ISSUE-92
13:50:10 <hknublau> ipolikoff: It's a piece of work to finish, there seems to be nobody who is passionate about this issue
13:50:30 <hknublau> ... Some use cases would have to be addressed via SPARQL instead of the Core.
13:50:47 <hknublau> ... Proposal is to close it by deleting sh:partition
13:52:32 <hknublau> We could theoretically add a flag on the shape, to make each QCR disjoint.
13:53:03 <TallTed> issue-92?
13:53:03 <trackbot> issue-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- open
13:53:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
13:53:04 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-92:_additive_repeated_properties
13:53:05 <hknublau> ipolikoff: We could put such a flag in (we would cover more use cases), and remove it if it introduces problems in CRs
13:53:34 <hknublau> ... I have no strong opinion and believe the partition the scenario isn't very important.
13:53:48 <hknublau> dallemang: I would vote for the path of least resistence.
13:54:25 <hknublau> ... I don't feel passionate about this either way, i.e. deleting sh:partition is fine.
13:55:23 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-92 by adding a flag that will make QCRs disjoined
13:56:00 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-92 by adding a flag that will make QCRs disjoined and deleting sh:partition
13:56:05 <hknublau> +1
13:56:06 <TallTed> +1
13:56:10 <TallTed> dallemang: +1
13:56:10 <ipolikoff> +1
13:56:11 <pano> +1
13:56:13 <Nicky> +1
13:56:30 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-92 by adding a flag that will make QCRs disjoined and deleting sh:partition
13:58:56 <ipolikoff> topic: ISSUE-202: Remove pre-binding from core
13:59:05 <TallTed> issue-202?
13:59:05 <trackbot> issue-202 -- Suggestion to remove pre-binding from core -- open
13:59:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/202
13:59:12 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-202:_Remove_pre-binding_from_core
13:59:29 <hknublau> hknublau: I think this can be closed because it's handled by edits.
13:59:37 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-202 as obsoleted by edit
13:59:43 <TallTed> +1
13:59:46 <pano> +1
13:59:47 <ipolikoff> +1
13:59:53 <hknublau> +1
14:00:12 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-202 as obsoleted by edit
14:00:16 <Nicky> +1
14:01:35 <ipolikoff> topic ISSUE-208
14:01:37 <TallTed> issue-208?
14:01:40 <trackbot> issue-208 -- $this in aggregations -- open
14:01:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/208
14:01:42 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-208:_.24this
14:02:25 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-208 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0027.html
14:02:29 <hknublau> +1
14:02:31 <Nicky> +1
14:02:51 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-208 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0027.html - made obsolete
14:02:58 <ipolikoff> +1
14:03:01 <TallTed> +1
14:03:07 <pano> +1
14:03:27 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-208 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0027.html - made obsolete
14:03:52 <hknublau> ipolikoff: For next meeting we should look at current draft to decide whether it can be the final public working draft.
14:04:05 <hknublau> ... everyone please review the draft.
14:04:19 <TallTed> trackbot: end meeting
14:04:19 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:04:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, TallTed, ipolikoff, dallemang, Nicky, (for, a, short, time), pano
14:04:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:04:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
14:04:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:04:28 <RRSAgent> I see no action items