12:00:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:00:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-shapes-irc
12:00:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:00:46 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
12:00:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:00:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
12:00:49 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:00:49 <trackbot> Date: 05 April 2017
12:00:58 <hknublau> present+
12:01:30 <ipolikof> present+
12:01:49 <simonstey> present+
12:01:57 <TallTed> present+
12:02:07 <Nicky> present+
12:02:38 <ipolikof> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 29 Mar 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-shapes-minutes.html
12:02:46 <hknublau> +1
12:02:47 <simonstey> +1
12:02:49 <ipolikof> +1
12:02:51 <TallTed> +1
12:02:51 <Nicky> +1
12:03:09 <ipolikof> RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 29 Mar 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-shapes-minutes.html
12:03:57 <sandro> sribe: sandro
12:04:01 <sandro> scribe: sandro
12:04:17 <ipolikof> Next meeting, April 12, same time
12:04:20 <sandro> ipolikof: Next meeting, same time, as usual, next week
12:04:46 <sandro> ipolikof:We don't have any new issues.  Main topic is the CR process and shacl-for-shacl
12:04:56 <sandro> ... we had the CR call last friday
12:05:20 <sandro> sandro: minutes are not public, just to attendees
12:06:44 <pano> pano has joined #shapes
12:07:53 <pano> present+
12:07:57 <sandro> present+
12:15:00 <sandro> sandro: There was a mention of Generalized RDF being desirable as well.
12:16:12 <sandro> ipolikof: The only timeline discussion was how long would shacl-for-shacl take, maybe a couple weeks, but the faster the better, while still fresh in everyone's minds
12:16:28 <sandro> ipolikof: so, urgency
12:18:57 <sandro> ipolikof: it was clear and okay we couldnt put everything into shacl-for-shacl
12:19:34 <sandro> TallTed:Anything that can be reasonably easily expressed in shacl about shacl should be, but nightmaring or impassible things can be skipped
12:19:46 <sandro> ipolikof: eg regexp
12:19:54 <sandro> topic: shacl-for-shacl
12:20:21 <sandro> hknublau: I started the next day on the obvious things, like minCount is an integer, they were easy to model
12:20:34 <sandro> ... I left the more difficult cases to my Monday
12:20:41 <sandro> ... path syntax was quite tricky
12:20:51 <sandro> ... lists were not that difficult in the end
12:21:04 <sandro> ... file is integrated now, I ran it against all my existing test cases
12:21:11 <sandro> ... it didn't find any existing error
12:21:27 <sandro> ... then I made some negative tests, but they're not comprehensive
12:21:36 <sandro> ... I'm reasonably optimistic that it's good enough
12:22:46 <simonstey> +q
12:23:09 <sandro> sandro: Lets make all elements shacl-for-shacl "at risk" during CR to we have more flexibility to edit it
12:23:29 <sandro> hknublau: I'd rather say textual definition takes precident
12:23:56 <sandro> hknublau:What we have is a good start.   I think everything except pattern is actually captured
12:24:15 <sandro> simonstey: So will this be normative?   What would that mean for an implementation?
12:24:22 <sandro> ... I see it a prime element of the test suite
12:24:51 <sandro> ... I don't know what it means if it's normative
12:24:59 <sandro> ipolikof: Tim asked for it to be normative
12:26:25 <sandro> sandro: Tim likes normative redundancy
12:27:09 <sandro> simonstey: So that means every conforming implementation would have to ...
12:27:18 <sandro> ipolikof: So test should be checked against it
12:27:30 <sandro> simonstey: Usually two types of tests.    You have your own shacl impl,
12:27:41 <sandro> ... one things, a test case that has an invalid mincount
12:27:55 <sandro> ... and your impl should detect that this is an invalid graph because mincount was violated
12:28:14 <sandro> ... but there's also the syntactic tests, which go on whether you used the language in the correct way
12:28:27 <sandro> ... syntax checks and semantic checks
12:28:50 <sandro> ... and I see shacl-for-shacl as checking the synatcically valid shacl
12:30:32 <sandro> simonstey: Do we say in the conformance section, 1.3, do we add that thing?   Do we say you're conformant if you pass?
12:31:02 <sandro> ipolikof: I see it as more of a tool of checking your shapes
12:31:31 <sandro> simonstey: If I'm implementing a shacl implementation, can I just ignore that?
12:32:39 <sandro> sandro: Not sure, what happened if you ignored the syntactic constraints
12:33:08 <sandro> simonstey: if I'm not producing the shapes, not sure what affect this has
12:33:34 <sandro> ipolikof: I don't think it tells us what software has to do
12:34:20 <sandro> ipolikof: Rather, we're not saying software has to actually use this turtle file
12:36:17 <sandro> sandro: To the extent "At Risk" means we can modify, let's use it.
12:36:41 <sandro> ipolikof: Right, we can't be expected to not have any bugs in a file like this
12:37:25 <sandro> sandro: I want to avoid a second CR for fixing small bugs in the shacl-for-shacl
12:37:42 <sandro> TallTed: That makes sense.    Tim's looking for something machine-processible
12:38:39 <sandro> TallTed: I think saying prose takes precedence makes sense
12:38:48 <sandro> sandro: Maybe as part of the At Risk statement
12:38:55 <sandro> ipolikof: Sounds good
12:39:12 <sandro> simonstey: otherwise all the prose would have to be at risk
12:39:37 <sandro> ipolikof: Okay way forward at this point?   Are we ready to resubmit, or do we need more testing?
12:39:51 <sandro> simonstey: Are elements of Core still missing?
12:40:10 <sandro> ipolikof: No, Holger says everything's there except pattern
12:40:43 <sandro> ipolikof: original file used recursion, undefined, then he changed it to not use recursion.   so that makes sh4sh okay
12:41:10 <sandro> ipolikof: but I thought we could talk about making the recusion situation a little better
12:41:17 <sandro> .. currently we say it's left to impls
12:41:43 <sandro> .. but it seems too risky at this point.  It would not be straightforward
12:42:13 <sandro> sandro: Can it be addressed in a future version
12:42:53 <sandro> hknublau: There were papers written about this topic, at least two people, Dmitri and Peter, would allow people to generate a static set of SPARQL queries and run them once, without callbacks & loop
12:43:31 <sandro> ... and that's a reasonable thing, so that's a plus for shacl (eg compared to shex)
12:43:48 <sandro> ... at the same time we want to allow impls that do support recursion
12:43:54 <sandro> ... so we left it undefined
12:44:14 <sandro> ... it's been hard to try to make everyone in the WG happy
12:44:30 <sandro> ... so that's where W3C process has left us
12:44:43 <sandro> ... and I don't see an easy other solution
12:45:21 <sandro> sandro: If we come back in two years, have we made things worse for that effort?
12:45:42 <sandro> hknublau: No, that'd be fine.   If someone comes up with a suitable defn of recursion, that could be added later.
12:45:58 <sandro> hknublau: And the market might go that way on its own
12:46:11 <sandro> ipolikof: Anything we should say in the spec to make that point clear?
12:46:46 <sandro> hknublau: Right now, we just say it's undefined.  We could add a non-normative paragraph underneath saying we want to support these various implementaton strategies and not block them off
12:47:08 <sandro> ipolikof: How to phrase that?
12:47:32 <sandro> sandro: I think the kind of explanation Holger just said
12:48:41 <sandro> sandro: "There are multiple says to do recursion, so at some point in the future one of those may be standardized"
12:48:48 <sandro> (vaguely)
12:49:00 <sandro> hknublau: Like OWL dialects, shacl-r
12:49:20 <sandro> topic: Errata
12:51:19 <sandro> sandro: let's link to w3.org/....  and have that redirect to a tag on github
12:51:56 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/errata
12:52:09 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2017/shacl-errata
12:53:35 <sandro> sandro: Future CG will ask Team to change this redirect when needed
12:54:56 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2017/shacl/errata
12:55:12 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2017/shacl/shacl-for-shacl
12:55:21 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2017/shacl/shacl-for-shacl.ttl as well
12:55:53 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2017/shacl/sh4sh
12:56:02 <hknublau> http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl-shacl#
12:57:35 <sandro> sandro: I think that's okay, yeah.    Those can be corrected.
12:58:44 <sandro> but I'll double check with phila
13:00:10 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2017/shacl/errata
13:00:26 <sandro> topic: Generalize RDF
13:00:40 <sandro> ipolikof: Does anyone thing implementations would support this?
13:01:00 <sandro> ipolikof: It's just that subjects can be Literals
13:01:22 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-generalized-rdf
13:01:37 <sandro> "A generalized RDF triple is a triple having a subject, a predicate, and object, where each can be an IRI, a blank node or a literal. "
13:01:51 <simonstey> " There is no requirement on the part of any RDF tool to accept, process, or produce anything beyond standard RDF triples, graphs, and datasets. "
13:02:06 <sandro> TallTed: Speaking as an RDF vendor, I think this would be a lot of hairpulling
13:02:25 <sandro> ... I know it's supported by Tim's code (cwm), but I don't know if it scales
13:02:47 <sandro> ipolikof: When you look at other graph models, you don't see this
13:03:11 <sandro> ipolikof: I wonder if there's any utility in this
13:03:33 <sandro> TallTed: There's now this footnote in 1.1 about generalized RDF, but it doesn't mandate than anything support it
13:04:27 <sandro> sandro: Tim's hoping that shacl doesn't add any blocks to GRDF
13:04:56 <sandro> ipolikof: I think the only thing we've done that impacts this, is the Node shape constraints, around comparisoon.    Less than, ...
13:06:05 <sandro> hknublau: there is no limitiation.   we're only talking about sh:lessThan.
13:06:24 <sandro> ... this is such an unlikely situation
13:06:36 <sandro> sandro: this came up because of Peter's FO
13:06:46 <sandro> ipolikof: Should we change this?
13:07:26 <sandro> ipolikof: Currently it says if you have this node shape, and it uses this component, it's ill-formed.     That sounds like prohibition, and it's ill formed.     We could change that.
13:07:52 <sandro> hknublau: But in that case we're not prohibiting anything
13:08:02 <sandro> sandro: would shsh block that
13:08:46 <sandro> hknublau: but it's find for an implementation to do something different
13:09:20 <sandro> TallTed: How about a little bit of prose that explains that in Standard RDF this happens, but explain that for folks using Generalized RDF this might be useful
13:09:35 <sandro> ipolikof: Right, explain that this is allowed in order to support Generalized RDF implementations
13:09:52 <sandro> ... er, not "allowed", but not deemed ill-formed
13:10:29 <sandro> sandro: Might this remove Peter's FO?
13:10:46 <sandro> ipolikof: no, I think there are other parts of that FO
13:11:17 <sandro> sandro: do you remember the other parts?
13:12:10 <sandro> ipolikof: some onotologies, eg cyc, that use constraints/restrictions that don't have any meaning, they are always true or always false.    If someone wanted to make shacl for that, it would be easy.
13:12:28 <sandro> ... this seems like a weak argument to me, just remove those bits during conversion
13:12:47 <sandro> ... I think it's more about not liking the division into node shapes and property shapes
13:13:09 <sandro> ... and he expressed this FO wasn't as strong
13:13:28 <sandro> ... so if we remove all blocks to GRDF, that should help
13:14:43 <sandro> hknublau: This seems like a bad idea, making a last minute change -- I can't even create a test case, since our systems can't support this, RDF doesn't allow this
13:15:55 <sandro> sandro: We could make this At Risk
13:16:17 <sandro> hknublau: The single syntax rule that disallows this
13:16:28 <sandro> hknublau: Sure, okay, I can live with that
13:17:01 <sandro> ipolikof: and explain it's because of GRDF
13:18:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Put the constraint about less-than AT RISK, in the name of supporting Generalized RDF
13:18:05 <hknublau> The rule is called lessThan-scope
13:18:19 <sandro> PROPOSED: Put the lessThan-scope rules AT RISK, in the name of supporting Generalized RDF
13:18:24 <sandro> +1
13:18:25 <simonstey> +1
13:18:25 <TallTed> +1
13:18:26 <hknublau> +1
13:18:26 <ipolikof> +1
13:18:28 <pano> +1
13:18:32 <sandro> RESOLVED: Put the lessThan-scope rules AT RISK, in the name of supporting Generalized RDF
13:19:47 <hknublau> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/46e717f4a826d508fbb7c7dc1660051b0b1f46de
13:20:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: Consider shacl-for-shacl as AT RISK to give us more latitude to edit it during CR
13:20:40 <sandro> +1
13:20:43 <ipolikof> +1
13:20:45 <TallTed> +1
13:20:46 <pano> +1
13:20:47 <hknublau> +1
13:20:48 <Nicky> +1
13:20:49 <simonstey> +1
13:20:57 <sandro> RESOLVED: Consider shacl-for-shacl as AT RISK to give us more latitude to edit it during CR
13:21:53 <sandro> PROPOSED: Re-request transition for SHACL to Candidate Recommendation, given the edits in the current ED plus those agreed upon at this meeting
13:22:01 <TallTed> +1
13:22:04 <hknublau> +1
13:22:05 <ipolikof> +1
13:22:06 <sandro> +1
13:22:08 <pano> +1
13:22:28 <simonstey> +1
13:22:30 <Nicky> +1
13:22:33 <sandro> RESOLVED: Re-request transition for SHACL to Candidate Recommendation, given the edits in the current ED plus those agreed upon at this meeting
13:23:34 <sandro> hknublau: I'll get to this now
13:24:50 <sandro> topic: Test Suite
13:26:04 <sandro> sandro: Can we have PositiveSyntaxTests and NegativeSyntaxTests in addition to the validation tests
13:26:51 <sandro> sandro: Maybe consider these as something that would be nice, probably not necessary
13:27:08 <sandro> TallTed: A one line, "Time permitting... "
13:28:17 <sandro> sandro: Maybe a bit WELCOME to the test suite, asking people to PLEASE SUBMIT any tricky shapes, including NEGATIVE syntax tests
13:28:49 <sandro> sandro: So, no machinery for now
13:29:00 <sandro> ... they might point out a bug in shacl-for-shacl
13:29:07 <sandro> topic: AOB
13:29:27 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:29:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
13:29:31 <sandro> ipolikof: Maybe we can move to hour long meetings one of these days
13:29:32 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:30:06 <TallTed> chair: ipolikof
13:30:10 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:30:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
13:30:14 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
13:30:22 <sandro> chair: Irene
13:30:35 <sandro> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:30:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-shapes-minutes.html sandro
13:31:38 <TallTed> trackbot, end meeting
13:31:38 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
13:31:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, ipolikof, simonstey, TallTed, Nicky, pano, sandro
13:31:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
13:31:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/05-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
13:31:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
13:31:47 <RRSAgent> I see no action items