13:04:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
13:04:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-shapes-irc
13:04:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:04:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
13:04:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:04:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:04:46 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:04:46 <trackbot> Date: 22 February 2017
13:04:51 <ipolikoff> present+
13:04:53 <TallTed> present+
13:04:56 <hknublau> present_
13:04:57 <pano> present+
13:04:59 <hknublau> present+
13:05:08 <Nicky> present+
13:05:58 <sandro> sandro has joined #shapes
13:08:58 <ipolikoff> scribenick: pano
13:09:51 <pano> Topic:Admin
13:09:51 <ipolikoff> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/232
13:10:06 <ipolikoff> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/233
13:10:16 <pano> sub-topic: Disposal of raised issues
13:10:43 <ipolikoff> PROPOSED: OPEN issues issue-232, issue-233
13:10:47 <hknublau> +1
13:10:54 <pano> +1
13:11:11 <TallTed> +1
13:11:15 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: OPEN issues issue-232, issue-233
13:11:57 <pano> ipolikoff: Sandro, could you introduce yourself
13:12:14 <pano> sandro: [introduces himself]
13:12:50 <pano> ... possibly replace Eric from W3C side.
13:13:17 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/
13:13:17 <pano> topic:issue-232
13:13:56 <pano> ... There is a privacy and security questionnaire
13:14:46 <pano> ... I think your answers to this questionnaire can lead to a privacy and security section
13:15:16 <pano> ipolikoff: How do we answers those questions, logistically?
13:15:52 <pano> sandro: usually somebody from the groups takes this on and answers these questions and a section is created based on that
13:16:14 <pano> TallTed: do you know of an example which we can look at?
13:16:49 <pano> I forgot to mute
13:17:39 <dallemang> dallemang has joined #shapes
13:18:07 <pano> s/I forgot to mute/
13:18:43 <ipolikoff> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/225
13:18:46 <pano> topic:issue-225
13:18:58 <hknublau> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Feb/0035.html
13:19:42 <pano> ipolikoff: Essentially an objection was raised that a validation report is described in a procedural manner
13:21:19 <pano> hknublau: I've drafted a response.
13:22:25 <pano> ... I believe this response clarifies, if not completely resolves this issue.
13:22:51 <pano> ... I believe the mathematical style vs our style (basically for implementers) is a matter of taste
13:23:05 <pano> ... it's always a trade-off.
13:23:07 <TallTed> q+
13:23:58 <hknublau> ack TallTed
13:25:08 <pano> TallTed: this section is going to have two main audiences. The implementers and the people who are trying to understand what the validation engine has done. I thought we stepped away from describing the validation and moved towards "conforming to the shape or not" ?
13:25:30 <pano> ipolikoff: yes, but we're still describing the validation report
13:26:34 <pano> TallTed: If we're going to blend validation and conformance I could live with that, but my point is more about the audience of this topic. The people who are going to be reading these reports need to be able to understand what they get back.
13:27:05 <pano> ... we could add an example of a simple result.
13:27:32 <pano> hknublau: there are lot's of example snippets
13:28:18 <pano> TallTed: We should provide a complete example, definitely an example that covers all the MUSTs .
13:28:58 <hknublau> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shacl-example
13:29:19 <pano> hknublau: If you look at section 1.4 at the end it shows the complete validation report
13:30:31 <pano> TallTed: it may just be a question of highlighting the example some more
13:30:55 <pano> ... what do the different color boxes in the spec signify?
13:31:52 <pano> ... it would be helpful to add a color box specific to the validation reports, so they pop out
13:32:12 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: CLOSE ISSUE-225 as addressed in section 4 - clarifying the validators always produce/new/result nodes, no change in the style of writing, add color to the validation results to make them stand out
13:32:46 <TallTed> +1
13:32:54 <hknublau> +1
13:32:56 <pano> +1
13:32:57 <ipolikoff> +1
13:33:07 <dallemang> +1
13:33:08 <Nicky> +1
13:33:16 <sandro> +0 sounds reasonable, but not familiar enough with issue
13:33:20 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: CLOSE ISSUE-225 as addressed in section 4 - clarifying the validators always produce/new/result nodes, no change in the style of writing, add color to the validation results to make them stand out
13:33:31 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-shapes-minutes
13:34:35 <ipolikoff> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 15 Feb 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-shapes-minutes
13:34:43 <hknublau> +1
13:35:29 <TallTed> +1
13:35:32 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 15 Feb 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-shapes-minutes
13:35:43 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
13:35:43 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-shapes-irc#T13-35-43
13:36:06 <pano> topic: issue-228
13:36:10 <hknublau> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Feb/0036.html
13:37:12 <pano> hknublau: I've created a draft response which strongly overlaps with the issue-225 response
13:37:51 <TallTed> q+
13:38:38 <pano> TallTed: on the wording of the response, I think exclude is the wrong word.
13:39:05 <pano> sandro: disallows is a possibility
13:39:25 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: CLOSE ISSUE-228 by ensuring cardinality 1 is specified for all relevant properties
13:39:41 <hknublau> +1
13:39:49 <Nicky> +1
13:39:49 <dallemang> +1
13:40:04 <ipolikoff> +1
13:40:17 <hknublau> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#results-value
13:40:40 <pano> pano: +1
13:40:42 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: CLOSE ISSUE-228 by ensuring cardinality 1 is specified for all relevant properties
13:40:47 <TallTed> +1
13:41:08 <pano> topic: issue-229
13:41:13 <hknublau> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Feb/0037.html
13:41:14 <ipolikoff> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/229
13:42:01 <pano> hknublau: I also drafted a response to this issue.
13:44:55 <pano> ... so, just a minor edit from this issue, and this email response
13:45:39 <ipolikoff> PROPOSAL: CLOSE ISSUE-229 as described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Feb/0037.html
13:45:52 <hknublau> +1
13:45:53 <TallTed> +1
13:46:01 <pano> pano: +1
13:46:02 <ipolikoff> +1
13:46:07 <dallemang> +1
13:46:15 <Nicky> +1
13:46:20 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: CLOSE ISSUE-229 as described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Feb/0037.html
13:46:58 <pano> topic: issue-233
13:47:02 <ipolikoff> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/233
13:48:09 <pano> hknublau: a couple of people on the public list wonder in what way the case in which the shapes graph itself is not well-formed can be handled
13:49:53 <pano> ... [describes proposal in https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/233 ]
13:51:05 <pano> ipolikoff: there was an additional email by Peter that suggests there must be a feature that validates the shapes graph itself
13:51:52 <pano> hknublau: that's right. I am not keen on that. It increases the workload and we don't have the means for that currently.
13:52:44 <pano> ... we would basically raise the bar for any implementation to pass the conformance test.
13:54:17 <pano> ipolikoff: there's two issues. extra work for the WG and extra work for the implementers
13:54:32 <pano> TallTed: we're basically suggesting a linter for SHACL
13:55:27 <pano> ... we have made requirement, so this is problematic.
13:55:43 <pano> hknublau: But, we haven't made such a requirement.
13:56:25 <pano> TallTed: ah ok, I misunderstood, we should then make it clearer that this is not a must
13:58:20 <pano> TallTed: The engine should report what it has found for testing the shapes graph.
13:58:37 <pano> hknublau: yes this could just be a boolean flag
13:59:04 <pano> sandro: it would be nice to have information on why a shapes graph invalid if it is invalid
14:00:18 <pano> TallTed: this check should be fairly uniform, you would want to have the same result for different engine implementations
14:00:37 <pano> hknublau: I'm sure this feature will emerge as an open source project.
14:01:19 <pano> sandro: do we have a list of postponed features? This could be a place to put features like this.
14:01:21 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: CLOSE ISSUE-230 by introducing sh:shapesGraphWellFormed flag which is set to true in the sh:ValidationReport object if the engine is certain that the shapes graph is passing all syntax requirements and adding a postponed feature for validation of the shapes graph
14:02:00 <TallTed> s/RESOLUTION/PROPOSAL/
14:02:26 <dallemang> dallemang has joined #shapes
14:02:34 <hknublau> +1
14:02:43 <TallTed> +1
14:02:46 <Nicky> +1
14:02:51 <pano> pano: +1
14:02:52 <ipolikoff> +1
14:03:16 <sandro> +1
14:03:45 <dallemang> 0
14:03:50 <pano> TallTed: in RDF world, having a null value is problematic. Setting one explicitly leads to all kinds of unexpected results, so I wouldn't want to go with that as a third option.
14:04:04 <pano> sandro: isn't it ok to ommit it then?
14:04:52 <pano> TallTed: leaving it empty then it is unclear if it is unknown, or undetermined
14:05:56 <pano> ... indeterminate is "I ran into something that I don't know how to check"
14:09:17 <pano> hknublau: I don't agree that the open world assumption is a problem here.
14:09:59 <pano> TallTed: This *is* open world. An unset column cannot be seen as determinate
14:12:02 <TallTed> -0
14:12:09 <dallemang> +1
14:12:10 <pano> dallemang: then sandro's comment becomes relevant again: if you don't get true on the conformance test then it's clear that you should proceed with caution
14:13:10 <pano> hknublau: So should I put in the spec that if the shapes graph is invalid the value is false or not?
14:14:57 <pano> dallemang: it's up to the implementation to handle what happens after validation leads to a false value
14:15:05 <ipolikoff> RESOLUTION: CLOSE ISSUE-233 by introducing sh:shapesGraphWellFormed flag which is set to true in the sh:ValidationReport object if the engine is certain that the shapes graph is passing all syntax requirements and adding a postponed feature for validation of the shapes graph
14:15:53 <pano> hknublau: there was a related comment by Peter on recursion that relates to this slightly. Handling of this is currently unspecified.
14:16:41 <pano> ... we could use a similar flag strategy for this
14:18:02 <pano> TallTed: to describe it in text is possible, but once you want to describe this as expressing engine capabilities in a specific way, these should be part of the spec
14:19:12 <pano> https://github.com/pmaria/data-shapes/tree/jsonld/shacl-jsonld-context
14:19:54 <hknublau> Great, could you add "comment" for rdfs:comment ?
14:20:12 <pano> yes I will!
14:20:41 <hknublau> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-exists/2017Feb/thread.html
14:21:14 <pano> topic: status SPARQL EXISTS
14:21:47 <pano> hknublau: it seems as if Andy is making progress on this issue. I hope this is not a blocker for CR.
14:22:08 <pano> dallemang: What work do you see that needs to be done on this?
14:22:47 <pano> hknublau: it seems that there havent't been any significant problems found yet
14:23:07 <pano> s/havent't/haven't
14:23:36 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:23:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
14:23:43 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make minutes public
14:23:43 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', TallTed.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:23:51 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:31:39 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Webmention_CR_Transition_Request
14:34:30 <sandro> sandro: be sure to indicate if comment is blocking
14:39:47 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:39:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
14:39:53 <TallTed> trackbot, end meeting
14:39:53 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:39:53 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ipolikoff, TallTed, pano, hknublau, Nicky
14:40:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:40:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
14:40:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:40:02 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
14:40:03 <sandro> present+ sandro
14:40:04 <sandro> present+ dallemang
14:40:04 <sandro> chair: ipolikoff