13:00:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
13:00:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-shapes-irc
13:00:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
13:00:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
13:00:35 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
13:00:35 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
13:00:36 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
13:00:36 <trackbot> Date: 01 March 2017
13:00:42 <hknublau> present+
13:00:58 <TallTed> present+
13:01:29 <Dimitris> present+
13:02:14 <ipolikof> present+
13:02:39 <AndyS> present+
13:03:32 <sandro> present+
13:03:47 <pano> pano has joined #shapes
13:05:05 <TallTed> chair: TallTed
13:05:14 <TallTed> scribenick: ipolikof
13:05:22 <pano> present+
13:05:30 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 22 Feb 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-shapes-minutes.html
13:05:44 <ipolikof> +1
13:05:48 <sandro> +1 minutes
13:05:50 <hknublau> +1
13:06:01 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 22 Feb 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-shapes-minutes.html
13:07:04 <TallTed> PROPOSED: OPEN https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/234 ISSUE-234
13:07:08 <hknublau> +1
13:07:08 <ipolikof> +1
13:07:14 <pano> +1
13:07:15 <Dimitris> +1
13:07:23 <TallTed> RESOLVED: OPEN https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/234 ISSUE-234
13:07:56 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-222
13:08:01 <TallTed> issue-222?
13:08:01 <trackbot> issue-222 -- Response to "On pre-binding" -- open
13:08:01 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/222
13:10:08 <ipolikof> AndyS: 3 parts to the issue, two of them were subjects of discussion on SPARQL CG mailing list. Peter has no examples of a problem, but he is asking for a proof
13:11:19 <ipolikof> AndyS: Asked Peter to help with a proof. He refused. There is some editorial work to do, but it doesn't change the solution
13:12:32 <ipolikof> AndyS: The third part of comment is editorial comment for the SHACL document which has already been addressed by Holger
13:13:36 <sandro> +1 fine with not having a proof, but curious if Peter is trying to get at something else
13:14:07 <ipolikof> AndyS: I don't know what details the proof could be based on, which is why I think Peter is building on sand
13:17:19 <ipolikof> sandro: there is a way to refer to the CG report, but it is a concern because if CG changes a report, then SHACL implementations have to change
13:17:52 <ipolikof> AndyS: It is better to copy the definition into SHACL document
13:18:44 <ipolikof> sandro: Agree, the same happened with datasets, the definition first appeared in the SPARQL document, but then came back in the RDF document
13:19:23 <Dimitris> q+
13:19:33 <ipolikof> sandro: Is Peter asking to divide SHACL-SPARQL into a separate document so that it could be worked on more
13:20:27 <ipolikof> TallTed: Spliting is work, we decided not to do it
13:21:17 <ipolikof> Dimitris: I did the spliting  draft 1.5 months ago, but it was decided not to use it
13:22:42 <ipolikof> sandro: you can use "at risk" language, this allows you to make a change without going through another CR. Is it possible to mark whatever pre-binding impacts as being "at risk"?
13:23:08 <ipolikof> TallTed: It sounds like it makes sense
13:23:38 <Dimitris> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Jan/0009.html
13:23:40 <Dimitris> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Jan/0015.html
13:24:05 <ipolikof> hknublau: all of SHACL-SPARQL depends on pre-binding, where to draw the line?
13:24:44 <ipolikof> sandro: we need to do so for all of SHACL SPARQL
13:26:04 <ipolikof> sandro: it is unusual to mark a large portion of the document as at risk. Is splitting really so difficult?
13:27:24 <ipolikof> hknublau: yes, we have a generic extension mechanism, we could possibly split, but I am worried about the references and having it damage the overall flow of the document
13:27:24 <TallTed> PROPOSED: CLOSE ISSUE-222 by explicitly including the relevant definitions from EXISTS CG; marking SHACL-SPARQL at risk (laying groundwork for rec-track doc split if necessary after first CR)
13:28:37 <ipolikof> AndyS: the definition of pre-binding is not going to change, but the details of description may change, what is in the SHACL document now should be already up to date
13:28:37 <hknublau> +1
13:28:47 <sandro> issue-222?
13:28:47 <trackbot> issue-222 -- Response to "On pre-binding" -- open
13:28:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/222
13:29:04 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:29:04 <Zakim> Present: hknublau, TallTed, Dimitris, ipolikof, AndyS, sandro, pano
13:29:24 <ipolikof> +.05
13:29:49 <AndyS> +1
13:29:52 <pano> +1
13:29:53 <Dimitris> +1
13:29:53 <sandro> +1 sounds like the best path, from what I'm hearing
13:29:57 <TallTed> +1
13:30:06 <TallTed> RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE-222 by explicitly including the relevant definitions from EXISTS CG; marking SHACL-SPARQL at risk (laying groundwork for rec-track doc split if necessary after first CR)
13:30:13 <dallemang> +1
13:31:26 <ipolikof> I will write a response to Peter
13:32:08 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-232
13:32:12 <TallTed> issue-232?
13:32:12 <trackbot> issue-232 -- Respec suggests a section on privacy and security -- open
13:32:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/232
13:32:46 <ipolikof> hknublau: I started a wiki page
13:33:15 <ipolikof> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Security
13:34:22 <ipolikof> hknublau: I have two possible issues, I can put them into a document, does anyone else has other ideas?
13:35:09 <ipolikof> TallTed: If we don't hear anything, we could turn it into a section
13:35:56 <TallTed> PROPOSED: CLOSE ISSUE-232 to be satisfied by the content from https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Security, modulo editorial tweaks and later input
13:36:01 <ipolikof> +1
13:36:02 <hknublau> +1
13:36:09 <pano> +1
13:36:10 <TallTed> +1
13:36:14 <Dimitris> +1
13:36:23 <dallemang> +1
13:36:45 <TallTed> RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE-232 to be satisfied by the content from https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Security, modulo editorial tweaks and later input
13:37:57 <ipolikof> pano: could not make much progress on JSON-LD context, hope to work on it next week and then we can discuss it
13:39:14 <ipolikof> hknublau: it doesn't impact anything, we can close the issue with the action item open, the context will be a separate document on the web
13:39:30 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-226
13:39:30 <TallTed> PROPOSED: CLOSE ISSUE-226 to be addressed via ACTION-48, producing non-rec-track NOTE
13:39:36 <hknublau> +1
13:39:40 <pano> +1
13:39:46 <dallemang> +1
13:39:47 <ipolikof> +1
13:39:52 <TallTed> +1
13:40:14 <TallTed> RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE-226 to be addressed via ACTION-48, producing non-rec-track NOTE
13:40:14 <sandro> +1
13:40:29 <Dimitris> +1
13:40:50 <hknublau> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-234
13:43:46 <TallTed> TOPIC: ISSUE-234
13:44:48 <ipolikof> nothing fundamentally new in Peter's e-mail: there are comments that are easy to respond to, mainly "editorial" changes, then there are issues he already raised before
13:45:26 <ipolikof> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-234
13:46:19 <hknublau> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Mar/0002.html
13:46:21 <ipolikof> hknublau: need help with points 36 and 37 brought up by Peter - validation results
13:47:05 <ipolikof> q+
13:48:16 <ipolikof> hknublau: describes changes made to define conformance checking, issues with recursive results
13:49:32 <sandro> +1 sounds about right
13:49:35 <hknublau> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/af5aedc5d3d0b669b916757423ee5f330a2c8800
13:52:46 <ipolikof> does the edit address the main point of Peter's comments: if the result doesn't show in the report and a spec says it must happen, how do you test if it happened
13:53:35 <ipolikof> hknublau: yes, I think I covered it
13:54:23 <ipolikof> TallTed: there could be a comment that "nested validation results" are not defined
13:54:43 <ipolikof> hknublau: I could take that out
13:56:37 <TallTed> "rely on conformance checking, effectively a sort of <dfn>nested</dfn> <a>validation result</a>."
13:57:37 <sandro> (Ping)
13:58:09 <ipolikof_> ipolikof_ has joined #shapes
13:59:00 <ipolikof_> hknublau: give everyone a couple of days to look at the definition before I respond
14:00:05 <ipolikof_> TallTed: yes, this would be the best way to go
14:02:57 <TallTed> WG asked to review and address draft response by March 3 - https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-234
14:03:13 <TallTed> s/WG asked/WG is asked/
14:03:21 <ipolikof> ipolikof has joined #shapes
14:04:21 <ipolikof> hknublau: Peter's comments about disjoint flag on QCRs, I wrote an e-mail about
14:05:12 <ipolikof> TallTed: putting it into each QCR branch creates more clarity
14:06:12 <TallTed> TOPIC: QCR disjointness, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Mar/0000.html
14:06:37 <ipolikof> hknublau: It is more verbose, but gives us more flexibility and addresses Peter's objection on having to look elsewhere
14:06:40 <Dimitris> q+
14:07:08 <hknublau> ack Dimitris
14:07:17 <ipolikof> TallTed: seems like a good idea
14:08:08 <ipolikof> Dimitris: if you want this requirement in, it is OK with me, but it is a late change, I am not sure how to implement it
14:08:23 <ipolikof> q-
14:09:33 <ipolikof> Dimitris: it is a nice to have, but it is late to make such change, I will not object it
14:10:40 <ipolikof> Dimitris: It changes the way the implementation must work, you have to look into other shapes, I think it is useful, but have some concerns
14:11:14 <ipolikof> hknublau: We have a similar situation with closed shapes
14:13:24 <TallTed> TOPIC: CR Process
14:14:02 <ipolikof> TallTed: announcement to the public review list makes sense
14:14:06 <TallTed> draft Transition Request now in process at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/CR-Transition-Request
14:15:13 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#wide-review
14:16:42 <ipolikof> should be re-publish the draft
14:17:09 <ipolikof> sandro: yes, you probably should
14:18:50 <ipolikof> TallTed: 4 weeks is not a hard requirements, so lets take 2 days to review the wiki, commit the change, publish the working draft and then make the announcement, falls mostly into Holger's hans, the rest of us should be reviewing the wiki
14:21:44 <ipolikof> sandro: the transition request is looking pretty good, the biggest thing I am not quite sure about is in issues addressed. Ideally, one wants to see a table with the disposition of comments: we received these comments, here is how it was resolved, link to the issue if raised
14:23:34 <ipolikof> sandro: this is an enormous amount of work which is why other groups are moving to github
14:25:32 <ipolikof> sandro: how far back we have to go, used to be only for comments after the last call, I am not sure what the expectations are, may be we can start now after the new announcement
14:26:39 <ipolikof> sandro: I will get guidance on what would be enough
14:28:23 <ipolikof> sandro: let's not do anything until I get guidance
14:28:56 <ipolikof> sandro: do we think Peter may retract any objects
14:30:30 <TallTed> s/objects/formal objections/
14:30:59 <ipolikof> hknublau: he may retract the one about QCRs
14:31:52 <Dimitris> q+
14:32:07 <ipolikof> if we bring back disjoint and equal for node shapes, there is no expressivity loss, so he may remove that objection as well
14:33:45 <ipolikof> Dimitris: with this change we are acting pro-actively for SHACL users, we had a long discussion about it
14:37:38 <ipolikof> sandro: is his objection about the loss of expressivity or because of the elegance?
14:38:53 <ipolikof> loss of expressivity in case of disjoint and equal, this is the main objection, the other part is probably on principle
14:39:42 <ipolikof> sandro: treatment of formal objection, needs to show that the working group considered the objection
14:41:28 <ipolikof> sandro: a wiki page for each formal objection so it is easy to understand each and what consideration it was given
14:43:10 <ipolikof> hknublau: we should ask Peter if the changes for QCRs and allowing disjoint and equal for node shapes would remove his objections
14:44:48 <TallTed> PROPOSED: move sh:qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint statements from nodeShape or propertyShape, into each QCR branch
14:45:04 <ipolikof> +1
14:45:30 <hknublau> +1
14:46:29 <TallTed> +1
14:46:41 <sandro> +1
14:46:42 <ipolikof> +1
14:46:45 <pano> +1
14:46:57 <TallTed> RESOLVED: move sh:qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint statements from nodeShape or propertyShape, into each QCR branch
14:47:58 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
14:47:58 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-shapes-irc#T14-47-58
14:48:05 <hknublau> PROPOSED: Remove the syntax rules that disallow sh:equals and sh:disjoint from node shapes.
14:48:08 <hknublau> 0
14:48:17 <ipolikof> +.05
14:48:28 <TallTed> +1
14:48:36 <pano> +1
14:48:41 <sandro> +1 if it satisfies peter's FO
14:48:53 <dallemang> +1
14:48:56 <Dimitris> +1 (I would still prefer all)
14:49:06 <sandro> +0  if it doesn't
14:49:12 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Remove the syntax rules that disallow sh:equals and sh:disjoint from node shapes
14:50:56 <TallTed> PROPOSED: publish we-hope-the-last Working Draft Friday, incorporating changes for ISSUE-234, etc., immediately followed by wide-review request
14:51:01 <ipolikof> +1
14:51:06 <pano> +1
14:51:11 <hknublau> +1
14:51:11 <TallTed> +1
14:51:11 <sandro> +1
14:51:18 <Dimitris> +1
14:51:25 <TallTed> RESOLVED: publish we-hope-the-last Working Draft Friday, incorporating changes for ISSUE-234, etc., immediately followed by wide-review request
14:52:53 <ipolikof> sandro: did we do anything on internalization
14:53:15 <ipolikof> hknublau: I looked at it and I don't think there is any impact
14:53:32 <Dimitris> q+
14:53:33 <ipolikof> sandro: this is great, but we need to notify them
14:53:58 <ipolikof> hknublau: I will do the notification
14:55:01 <ipolikof> Dimitris: I have been traveling a lot and my workload have exploded, my contribution going forward will be limited
14:55:55 <TallTed> ADJOURNED
14:56:03 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:56:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
14:56:11 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make minutes public
14:56:11 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', TallTed.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:56:19 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:56:58 <TallTed> trackbot, end meeting
14:56:58 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:56:58 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, TallTed, Dimitris, ipolikof, AndyS, sandro, pano, .05
14:57:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:57:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/01-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
14:57:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:57:07 <RRSAgent> I see no action items