13:01:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
13:01:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-shapes-irc
13:01:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:01:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
13:02:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:02:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:02:01 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:02:01 <trackbot> Date: 25 January 2017
13:02:13 <hknublau> present+
13:02:28 <Nicky_> present+
13:02:36 <simonstey> present+
13:02:40 <dallemang> present+
13:02:48 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #shapes
13:03:53 <ipolikoff> ipolikoff has joined #shapes
13:04:13 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
13:06:01 <TallTed> trackbot, start meeting
13:06:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:06:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:06:07 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:06:07 <trackbot> Date: 25 January 2017
13:06:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:06:32 <Nicky__> Nicky__ has joined #shapes
13:07:44 <TallTed> present+
13:08:04 <hknublau> chair: TallTed
13:09:18 <pano> pano has joined #shapes
13:09:24 <Dimitris> present+
13:09:48 <TallTed> scribenick: dallemang
13:10:02 <pano> present+
13:10:29 <ipolikoff> present
13:10:43 <ipolikoff> present+
13:11:37 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 18 Jan 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-shapes-minutes.html
13:12:19 <hknublau> +1
13:12:31 <ipolikoff> +1
13:12:43 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 18 Jan 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-shapes-minutes.html
13:12:52 <simonstey> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:12:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-shapes-minutes.html simonstey
13:13:02 <dallemang> TallTed: We will have another call next week, same time/channel
13:13:04 <TallTed> ISSUE-219: Should we add a one-of-a-list-of-shapes operator
13:13:04 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-219 Should we add a one-of-a-list-of-shapes operator.
13:13:04 <TallTed> ISSUE-219: Should we add a one-of-a-list-of-shapes operator
13:13:04 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-219 Should we add a one-of-a-list-of-shapes operator.
13:13:25 <TallTed> issue-219?
13:13:26 <trackbot> issue-219 -- Should we add a one-of-a-list-of-shapes operator -- raised
13:13:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/219
13:14:39 <dallemang> simonstey: Why didn't we follow up on this, when we realized that XOR wasn't doing the job we needed?
13:14:45 <dallemang> ... was it lack of use cases?
13:15:01 <dallemang> ipolikoff: I don't know, but Eric brought up a use case recently
13:15:12 <dallemang> ... either a combination of first/last or full name
13:15:44 <dallemang> ... she has been talking to Allotrop (consortium of pharmas)  They have been devleoping shapes for medical instruments
13:15:57 <dallemang> ... OneOf is all over their shapes.
13:16:01 <Nicky_> Nicky_ has joined #shapes
13:16:11 <dallemang> ... she doesn't know if it is really essential or could be replaced with something else
13:16:31 <dallemang> TallTed: Is that one or more, or one and only?
13:16:35 <dallemang> ipolikoff: one and only
13:16:53 <dallemang> TallTed: one and only is XOR, so this is already covered
13:17:02 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: Open ISSUE-219
13:17:03 <dallemang> TallTed: This is not the right meeting for this discussion
13:17:09 <hknublau> +1
13:17:15 <TallTed> +1
13:17:19 <simonstey> +1
13:17:20 <Dimitris> +1
13:17:23 <pano> +1
13:17:35 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-219
13:17:38 <dallemang> 0
13:17:52 <TallTed> TOPIC: Working Draft
13:18:50 <dallemang> TallTed: We will put in a draft now, publish current version as nominal working draft
13:19:09 <dallemang> .,. we're faking a "last call"
13:19:51 <ipolikoff> I thought CR1 was "last call"
13:20:21 <dallemang> simonstey: We aren't faking the last call, we're simulating it
13:21:23 <dallemang> Dimitris: there have been a lot of changes in the past two weeks
13:22:40 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: Publish current working draft as (final) public working draft.
13:22:52 <simonstey> +1
13:22:58 <hknublau> +1
13:22:59 <ipolikoff> +1
13:23:08 <dallemang> =1
13:23:09 <dallemang> +1
13:23:13 <Dimitris> 0
13:23:19 <TallTed> +1
13:23:36 <pano> +1
13:23:42 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Publish current working draft as (final) public working draft
13:24:10 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-218: Move annotations
13:24:15 <TallTed> issue-218?
13:24:15 <trackbot> issue-218 -- Should we move SPARQL Annotations mechanism into the WG Note? -- open
13:24:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/218
13:24:52 <dallemang> holger: in most drafts, we had a chapter about how to inject annotations into SPARQL results
13:25:09 <dallemang> ... standalone and not important, he proposes putting it into the note with advanced SPARQL
13:25:18 <dallemang> ... to reduce complexity
13:25:26 <dallemang> Dimitris:
13:25:56 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: close issue-218, by moving SPARQL Annotations mechanism into the WG Note
13:25:58 <simonstey> +1
13:26:01 <hknublau> +1
13:26:02 <Dimitris> +1
13:26:02 <ipolikoff> +1
13:26:05 <TallTed> +1
13:26:05 <dallemang> 0
13:26:10 <pano> +1
13:26:24 <TallTed> RESOLVED: close issue-218, by moving SPARQL Annotations mechanism into the WG Note
13:26:41 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-93: engine/language
13:26:44 <TallTed> issue-93?
13:26:44 <trackbot> issue-93 -- SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements -- open
13:26:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/93
13:26:53 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-93:_engine_.2F_language
13:27:37 <simonstey> issue-214
13:27:37 <trackbot> issue-214 -- [Editorial] Read through for "must" and "may" -- closed
13:27:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/214
13:27:59 <dallemang> TallTed: thinks that the resolution is to close it as taken care of by compliance work
13:28:12 <dallemang> s/compliance/conformance 1.3
13:28:24 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#conformance
13:29:31 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-93 as handled by section 1.3 (Conformance)
13:29:34 <simonstey> +1
13:29:38 <hknublau> +1
13:29:39 <dallemang> simonstey: there's a "to do" in 13 Compliance, which we need to get rid of
13:29:46 <dallemang> TallTed: Is that separate, or part of this issue?
13:29:49 <pano> +1
13:29:50 <TallTed> s/13/1.3/
13:29:54 <dallemang> +1
13:29:55 <Dimitris> +1
13:30:00 <ipolikoff> +1
13:30:02 <TallTed> +1
13:30:15 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-93 as handled by section 1.3 (Conformance)
13:31:01 <dallemang> hknublau: will take out the to do comment, since for CR we don't need test case links
13:31:18 <dallemang> simonstey: isn't test case needed for conformance?
13:31:40 <dallemang> hknublau: we don't have tests, only work in progress.
13:32:44 <dallemang> TallTed: We can have a pointer to our work in progress.
13:33:15 <dallemang> simonstey: The LDP has test suites listed up front, but not in conformance
13:33:44 <dallemang> simonstey: therefore, we can get rid of this in 1.3, and put in test suites in the final iteration
13:34:18 <dallemang> TallTed: We will remove the referenc eto test suites from section 1.3
13:34:27 <dallemang> s/c eto/ce to/
13:34:33 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-111: charter issues
13:34:34 <TallTed> issue-111?
13:34:34 <trackbot> issue-111 -- How should the working group address the issues called out in the WG charter? -- open
13:34:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/111
13:34:34 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-111:_charter_issues
13:35:48 <dallemang> ipolikoff: "In current intro to SHACL, we don't sufficiently tie to charter. "  Proposal is to add language to spec to put in this link.
13:36:05 <simonstey> +q
13:36:11 <dallemang> ... question: Is it customary or necessary for spec to have close tie explanation for its ocnnection to the charter?
13:36:23 <dallemang> TallTed: No, this isn't common, the spec doesn't usually say anything itself.
13:36:30 <dallemang> ipolikoff: in that case, she suggests closing
13:36:33 <hknublau> I checked a few other specs, none of them have such a reference.
13:37:31 <dallemang> simonstey: is it necessary, or is it clever to do it?  To avoid future comments.  So even if it is not necessary, simonstey things it would be better to close the issue with the explanation that ipolikoff summarized in the proposal page
13:37:57 <dallemang> ... so that e.g. Peter will see why, and what the connection is.
13:39:41 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: close issue-111 without putting any Charter-validation in the spec, as this is neither customary nor required by W3 process, but with notation in closing that "the SHACL spec meets all three of the issues listed in the RDF Data Shapes working group charter"
13:39:56 <ipolikoff> +1
13:40:00 <dallemang> +1
13:40:20 <simonstey> +1
13:40:36 <TallTed> +1
13:40:36 <pano> +1
13:40:41 <Dimitris> +1
13:40:41 <hknublau> +1
13:40:50 <TallTed> RESOLVED: close issue-111 without putting any Charter-validation in the spec, as this is neither customary nor required by W3 process, but with notation in closing that "the SHACL spec meets all three of the issues listed in the RDF Data Shapes working group charter"
13:41:16 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-211: Eliminate property constraints
13:41:16 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints
13:41:16 <TallTed> issue-211?
13:41:16 <trackbot> issue-211 -- Eliminate property constraints -- open
13:41:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/211
13:42:58 <Nicky> Nicky has joined #shapes
13:44:55 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: close issue-211 as essentially solved, with Dimitris putting remaining fragmentary concern in a fresh issue
13:44:56 <dallemang> hknublau: hoping that we will close all issues by the end of this meeting, to give positive progress report to W3C mgmt
13:45:05 <hknublau> +1
13:45:07 <Dimitris> +1
13:45:13 <dallemang> +1
13:45:13 <pano> +1
13:45:18 <simonstey> +1
13:45:26 <TallTed> +1
13:45:42 <TallTed> RESOLVED: close issue-211 as essentially solved, with Dimitris putting remaining fragmentary concern in a fresh issue
13:45:50 <ipolikoff> +1
13:46:10 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-215: literal parameters
13:46:10 <TallTed> issue-215?
13:46:10 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-215:_parameters_with_a_value_type_that_is_a_datatype
13:46:11 <trackbot> issue-215 -- parameters with a value type that is a datatype -- open
13:46:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/215
13:46:53 <dallemang> ipolikoff: 215 is no longer relevant, because there was an issue with Accepted Type, the wording could have inferred that a literal is something else
13:47:03 <dallemang> ... ipolikoff put a proposal together to change the language, however,
13:47:18 <dallemang> ... the spec has changed, so that sentence is no longer there, since ExpectedType is no longer there
13:47:29 <Dimitris> q+
13:47:30 <dallemang> s/Accepted/Expected/
13:47:40 <simonstey> ack simonstey
13:47:41 <dallemang> ipolikoff: this raises a new  topic, related to expected type
13:48:50 <dallemang> ipolikoff: current spec, a shape is an IRI or blank in the shapes graph.  Another proposal (Dimitris and Peter) said that it had to have expected type of Shape
13:49:05 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: close issue-215 as resolved by other changes to date; "expected type" no longer occurs in the spec
13:49:08 <dallemang> ipolikoff: not about this issue, this issue can be closed
13:49:13 <hknublau> +1
13:49:21 <dallemang> ipolikoff: but this resolution brings up a new topic
13:49:45 <simonstey> q+
13:50:29 <pano> 2.1
13:50:59 <dallemang> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes
13:51:06 <dallemang> q+
13:52:38 <dallemang> hknublau: e.g., we have a formal rule that says that cardinality must be an integer, if we violate this, then outcome is undefined
13:52:50 <dallemang> TallTed: mincount is in 4.2.1
13:53:32 <simonstey> ack Dimitris
13:53:53 <dallemang> hknublau: separate syntax and semantics,
13:54:22 <dallemang> Dimitris: What happens if mincount is not an integer?  If hknublau says it is disallowed, then the issue is no longer releant
13:55:27 <simonstey> q?
13:55:30 <dallemang> TallTed: original concern is about expected type, but the example is mincount, now we say that it isn't an expected type, but now it is this type
13:55:31 <ipolikoff> sec 4
13:55:32 <ipolikoff> Shapes that violate any of the syntax rules enumerated in those parameter tables are ill-formed.
13:55:49 <dallemang> TallTed: Is there a place to say what happens if something is a type, but the graph violates that
13:55:58 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#syntax-rules
13:56:29 <dallemang> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ill-formed-shape-graphs
13:57:26 <dallemang> TallTed: Any objections to change may/should in 3.4.2?
13:57:38 <dallemang> hknublau: no, because shapes graph and data graph could be the same
13:57:49 <simonstey> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
13:57:54 <dallemang> ... it is impractical to insist on this
13:58:06 <dallemang> TallTed: "should" allows the processor not to do something in some situation
13:58:30 <dallemang> ... "should" is guidance to non-sophisticated folks, to indicate that if they don't know better then they should do it.
13:58:42 <dallemang> hknublau: Doesn't "UNDEFINED" do this?
13:59:01 <dallemang> hknublau: it isn't realistic to expect an implementation to do all those tests.
13:59:03 <simonstey> q?
13:59:57 <dallemang> TallTed: isn't so sure about "UNDEFINED", but is pretty sure about this SHOULD produce a failure
14:00:34 <dallemang> hknublau: what if there is a bad shape in the graph, but it isn't being used?  Does it make sense for there to be an error?
14:00:42 <dallemang> dallemang: actually, yes, such an error is welcome
14:01:08 <dallemang> hknublau: we can change MAY/SHOULD, but not change UNDEFINED
14:01:30 <TallTed> ack
14:01:41 <TallTed> q?
14:01:46 <TallTed> ack simonstey
14:02:25 <dallemang> simonstey: RECOMMENDED is what SHOULD means, so he is in favor of change to SHOULD
14:02:55 <TallTed> PROPOSED: change the MAY in "3.4.2 Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs -- If the shapes graph contains ill-formed nodes, then the result of the validation process is undefined. A SHACL processor MAY produce a failure in this case." to SHOULD
14:03:51 <ipolikoff> +1
14:03:52 <simonstey> +1
14:03:56 <Dimitris> +1
14:04:02 <TallTed> ack dallemang
14:04:15 <pano> +1
14:04:17 <TallTed> +1
14:04:23 <dallemang> +1
14:04:30 <hknublau> +1
14:04:39 <TallTed> RESOLVED: change the MAY in "3.4.2 Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs -- If the shapes graph contains ill-formed nodes, then the result of the validation process is undefined. A SHACL processor MAY produce a failure in this case." to SHOULD
14:04:49 <Dimitris> scribenick: dimitris
14:04:55 <dallemang> q+
14:05:31 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: close issue-215 as resolved by other changes to date; "expected type" no longer occurs in the spec
14:05:39 <hknublau> +1
14:05:43 <Dimitris> +q
14:06:42 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: close issue-215 as resolved by other changes to date; "expected type" no longer occurs in the spec, and explicit syntax rules have been added
14:06:44 <ipolikoff> +1
14:06:50 <hknublau> +1
14:07:35 <Dimitris> Dimitris: expected type is removed from the spec why?
14:08:11 <Dimitris> hknublau: no longer needed, only needed for the shapes definition
14:08:34 <Nicky> Nicky has joined #shapes
14:08:43 <Dimitris> ... we never needed it anyway
14:09:19 <ipolikoff> I read thoroughly through Dimitris draft and expected type only used there for defining the shape
14:09:21 <Dimitris> Dimitris: we need to review the spec
14:09:30 <simonstey> +1
14:09:38 <TallTed> +1
14:09:40 <pano> +1
14:09:44 <Dimitris> 0 (cannot tell in the light of the definition changes)
14:09:47 <dallemang> +1
14:09:56 <TallTed> RESOLVED: close issue-215 as resolved by other changes to date; "expected type" no longer occurs in the spec, and explicit syntax rules have been added
14:10:40 <dallemang> q?
14:11:36 <dallemang> q-
14:12:14 <Dimitris> hknublau: discuss about XOR?
14:12:28 <TallTed> TOPIC: issue-219
14:12:31 <TallTed> issue-219?
14:12:31 <trackbot> issue-219 -- Should we add a one-of-a-list-of-shapes operator -- open
14:12:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/219
14:12:41 <ipolikoff> q+
14:12:54 <simonstey> ack Dimitris
14:13:28 <simonstey> q+
14:13:34 <Dimitris> hknublau: we've seen use cases that require this
14:14:13 <simonstey> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or
14:14:22 <simonstey> More generally, XOR is true only when an odd number of inputs are true. A chain of XORs—a XOR b XOR c XOR d (and so on)—is true whenever an odd number of the inputs are true and is false whenever an even number of inputs are true.
14:14:28 <Dimitris> TallTed: do not understand the odd number of matches
14:15:19 <Dimitris> ... xor is odd number of true values
14:15:47 <Dimitris> dallemang: ... explaining xor definition ...
14:16:56 <Dimitris> ... official definition is counter intuitive
14:18:31 <Dimitris> TallTed: sh:xor can be as exclusive or or one and only one of this list
14:19:27 <TallTed> s/exclusive or or one and only one of this list/"exclusive or" or "one and only one of this list"/
14:19:56 <Dimitris> simonstey: why not sh:oneOf
14:20:09 <Dimitris> dallemang: oneOf is a term in OWL
14:21:33 <Dimitris> TallTed: why not add a disclaimer for xor?
14:23:56 <Dimitris> dallemang: I can write the disclaimer
14:24:09 <simonstey> +1
14:24:33 <Dimitris> TallTed: suggest to try with sh:xor
14:25:23 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: close issue-219, adding sh:xor, meaning one-and-only-one-of, wording carefully to avoid confusions and to align with sh:or (meaning at-least-one-of)
14:25:31 <dallemang> +1
14:25:34 <hknublau> +1
14:25:42 <TallTed> +1
14:25:45 <pano> +1
14:25:49 <Dimitris> +1
14:26:00 <ipolikoff> +1
14:26:09 <TallTed> RESOLVED: close issue-219, adding sh:xor, meaning one-and-only-one-of, wording carefully to avoid confusions and to align with sh:or (meaning at-least-one-of)
14:26:30 <dallemang> q+
14:26:53 <simonstey> ack simonstey
14:27:15 <ipolikoff> q-
14:27:39 <Dimitris> hknublau: what are the next steps?
14:28:04 <Dimitris> ... how much time for feedback once we publish?
14:28:24 <Dimitris> TallTed: do not have a definitive answer
14:28:44 <Dimitris> ipolikoff: publish and let's see
14:28:53 <hknublau> q+
14:29:10 <hknublau> ack dallemang
14:29:28 <Dimitris> dallemang: are we talking abut the definition of shapes?
14:30:18 <Dimitris> TallTed: once you are ready send a mail for review
14:31:35 <dallemang> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or 'Some may contend that any binary or other n-ary exclusive "or" is true if and only if it has an odd number of true inputs '
14:31:39 <Dimitris> ... maintain bi-weekly calls in case something comes up
14:32:15 <Dimitris> s/bi-weekly/weekly/
14:32:27 <TallTed> q?
14:32:46 <TallTed> TOPIC: shape definition in 2.1
14:33:52 <Dimitris> dallemang: definition is problematic
14:34:05 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #shapes
14:34:06 <Dimitris> ... "A shape is an IRI or blank node in the shapes graph." is far too general
14:34:24 <ipolikoff> dallemang: far too general
14:34:30 <Dimitris> .. and counter intuitive
14:35:09 <Dimitris> hknublau: was trying to come up with a minimum definition
14:35:38 <Dimitris> ... it only makes sense in validation
14:35:54 <Dimitris> ... it doesn't matter anywhere else
14:36:29 <Dimitris> ... a shape can be validated only if it has a target
14:37:44 <Dimitris> ... two ways to call the engine, using targets,  explicitely or with reference
14:37:56 <Dimitris> ... can be defined but not needed
14:38:04 <simonstey> +q
14:38:13 <Dimitris> q+
14:38:23 <Dimitris> ... only matters to implementers
14:38:59 <Dimitris> ... we can enumerate informative rules
14:39:40 <Dimitris> dallemang: I find this satisfying, because I want to be able to find all shapes
14:40:27 <TallTed> q?
14:40:40 <TallTed> ack hknublau
14:40:50 <TallTed> ack simonstey
14:40:50 <simonstey> sh:or 	A SHACL list of shapes to validate the value nodes against. The value of each sh:or is a SHACL list. Each member of such list must be a well-formed shape.
14:41:22 <Dimitris> simonstey: [explaining example above]
14:42:01 <Dimitris> ... could I just put any IRI?
14:42:21 <Dimitris> hknublau: should I put ill-formed there?
14:45:29 <Dimitris> simonstey: kind of works but since everything is a shape any blank can be ill-formed
14:47:19 <Dimitris> ipolikoff: is it a problem
14:47:59 <Dimitris> simonstey: what is a well-formed shape for values in e.g. sh:or
14:48:47 <Dimitris> TallTed: if it has shacl attributes is has to conform, if not it doesn't
14:49:09 <Dimitris> simonstey: then we need to define what is an ill-formed shape
14:49:55 <ipolikoff> for example
14:49:57 <ipolikoff> The values of sh:qualifiedValueShape must be well-formed shapes.
14:50:00 <ipolikoff> becomes
14:50:03 <Dimitris> hknublau: "it must be a shape but not ill-formed"?
14:50:22 <ipolikoff> The values of sh:qualifiedValueShape must be a shape that is not ill-formed.
14:50:55 <Dimitris> simonstey: define what well-formed / ill-formed shape is
14:51:48 <Dimitris> TallTed: we have many references to ill-formed graph but not for ill-formed shapes
14:53:54 <Dimitris> q+
14:58:48 <Dimitris> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#node-shapes
15:00:44 <Dimitris> Dimitris: we need to be explicit, this is too loose
15:01:20 <Dimitris> hknublau: the definition does not brake anything
15:02:31 <Dimitris> Dimitris: this list has to be normative
15:02:48 <Dimitris> TallTed: it depends on the use case
15:03:37 <Dimitris> is sh:IRI as shape
15:03:40 <Dimitris> ?
15:04:32 <Dimitris> simonstey: can we say something about node shape? it is too general
15:05:38 <Dimitris> ... state it explicitly in every occurrence?
15:05:48 <Dimitris> hknublau: Add it once, it is a big overhead
15:07:45 <TallTed> ADJOURNED
15:08:09 <simonstey> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:08:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-shapes-minutes.html simonstey
15:08:49 <hknublau> trackbot, end meeting
15:08:49 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:08:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, Nicky_, simonstey, dallemang, TallTed, Dimitris, pano, ipolikoff
15:08:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:08:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/25-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
15:08:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:08:58 <RRSAgent> I see no action items