12:57:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:57:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-shapes-irc
12:57:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:57:28 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
12:57:30 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:57:30 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
12:57:31 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:57:31 <trackbot> Date: 26 April 2017
12:57:55 <TallTed> chair: TallTed
12:57:58 <TallTed> present+
12:58:02 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:58:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:58:07 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:58:56 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF Data Shapes Working Group -- https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page -- current agenda https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.04.26
12:59:16 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF Data Shapes Working Group -- current agenda https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.04.26
13:00:15 <Nicky> Nicky has joined #shapes
13:00:45 <hknublau> present+
13:01:12 <pano> pano has joined #shapes
13:02:18 <dimitris> dimitris has joined #shapes
13:03:39 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #shapes
13:03:48 <sandro> present+
13:03:57 <jack_> jack_ has joined #shapes
13:04:01 <pano> present+
13:04:02 <dimitris> present+
13:04:07 <Nicky> present+
13:04:12 <ipolikof> ipolikof has joined #shapes
13:04:17 <jack_> +present
13:04:21 <ipolikof> present+
13:07:12 <TallTed> scribenick: dimitris
13:07:13 <dimitris> scribenick: dimitris
13:07:27 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 19 April 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html
13:07:37 <ipolikof> +1
13:07:39 <Nicky> +1
13:07:41 <jack_> +1
13:07:42 <pano> +1
13:07:47 <TallTed> +1
13:07:50 <hknublau> +1
13:07:51 <dimitris> +1
13:08:01 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 19 April 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html
13:08:19 <TallTed> next call to be same time, Wednesday 2017.05.03
13:08:34 <TallTed> TOPIC: Open Issues
13:08:34 <dimitris> TallTed: next meeting is next week, same time
13:08:42 <TallTed> see https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues
13:09:38 <dimitris> TallTed: Holger, can you comment on problems with new issues?
13:10:22 <dimitris> hknublau: first issue, denial of service, trivial issue, added text to address it
13:11:36 <dimitris> ... 2nd case: non-redunant multiple sh:minInclusive, Peter created an example with multiple sh:minInclusive and rationals for allowing multiple min inclusive values
13:12:20 <dimitris> ... it is better to have a more constrained language and would like to resolve this issue this way
13:12:46 <hknublau> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#MinInclusiveConstraintComponent
13:14:56 <dimitris> ipolikof: peter originally agreed with this but after a month said he didn't agree with dissalowing multiple constraints in cases like sh:minInclusibe
13:15:18 <dimitris> ... I am not sure what this example means
13:15:58 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #shapes
13:16:05 <dimitris> hknublau: he can use an and to have the same result
13:16:30 <dimitris> sandro: he seems to like everything clearly defined
13:17:45 <simonstey> present+
13:17:56 <dimitris> ... the value in rdf in the string and could be pointing rdf semantics
13:19:04 <dimitris> ... the xsd:dateTime semantics is a bit strange, cannot recall exact
13:19:48 <dimitris> TallTed: one is more restrictive than the other
13:20:33 <ipolikof> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Apr/0068.html
13:21:26 <dimitris> sandro: let's look at the other issues
13:21:55 <dimitris> hknublau: next one is #67 "test cases process removes too much"
13:22:36 <dimitris> ... other people were able to submit test reports but described the process more precisely
13:23:05 <dimitris> hknublau: #65 "behaviour of SHACL Core implementation on shapes graphs with ill-formed SHACL-SPARQL constructs"
13:23:51 <dimitris> ... this is on what happens with shacl core and shacl sparql
13:24:27 <dimitris> TallTed: looks like the issue is about shacl core signaling an error when encounters things it doesn't know
13:25:25 <simonstey> dimitris: it is not easy to identify shacl-sparql
13:27:09 <dimitris> ipolikof: we can extend shacl-shacl like shacl-shacl-core that can identify such cases
13:27:59 <dimitris> TallTed: the test should not be like "if you find any of these" flag it but only "if do not you find any of these" flag it
13:28:18 <dimitris> hknublau: this is not easy as there can be extensions and annotations
13:28:54 <dimitris> q+
13:29:36 <simonstey> q+
13:31:58 <TallTed> ack dimitris
13:32:12 <dimitris> ipolikof: prefer an editorial comment like only terms defined here have semantics in shacl core
13:34:14 <hknublau> ack simonstey
13:34:41 <dimitris> simonstey: shacl processors that can pass shacl-core tests and not shacl-sparql tests are shacl-core processors
13:38:52 <dimitris> hknublau: we do not have a pure shacl-core concept e.g. shacl-sparql to validate shapes graph in a shacl-core mode
13:38:54 <simonstey> This section defines the built-in SHACL Core constraint components that MUST be supported by all SHACL Core processors.
13:39:05 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#core-components
13:40:34 <simonstey> For the example shapes graph above, a SHACL-SPARQL processor would produce lines such as PREFIX ex: <http://example.com/ns#>. The SHACL-SPARQL processor MUST produce a failure if the resulting query string cannot be parsed into a valid SPARQL 1.1 query.
13:40:44 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-constraints-syntax
13:42:25 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#conformance
13:43:07 <TallTed> PROPOSED: add editorial statement to clarify existing WG intent that SHACL-Core processors do not "see" SHACL-SPARQL; SHACL-SPARQL processors are expected to also handle SHACL-Core, as SHACL-SPARQL extends SHACL-Core
13:43:19 <ipolikof> +1
13:43:24 <hknublau> * Could we go for a bit longer today? Only 17 minutes left.
13:43:28 <simonstey> +1
13:43:35 <jack_> +1
13:43:47 <sandro> +1
13:43:47 <dimitris> +1
13:43:47 <hknublau> +1
13:43:51 <TallTed> +1
13:43:59 <TallTed> RESOLVED: add editorial statement to clarify existing WG intent that SHACL-Core processors do not "see" SHACL-SPARQL; SHACL-SPARQL processors are expected to also handle SHACL-Core, as SHACL-SPARQL extends SHACL-Core
13:45:21 <dimitris> hknublau: #63 is similar to this
13:48:03 <ipolikof> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes-recursion
13:48:07 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/64
13:48:44 <dimitris> ipolikof: wrt issue #64 recursion is left unspecified in the spec and the comment is that shacl-shacl does not identify recursion
13:48:59 <simonstey> +q
13:50:08 <dimitris> TallTed: we have discussed this a lot and we had 2 options: implementation can do anything or not
13:50:40 <hknublau> ack simonstey
13:50:43 <dimitris> simonstey: we cannot require implementation to check this
13:51:09 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/62
13:51:54 <dimitris> hknublau: issue #62 we never claimed that shacl-shacl can test everything
13:52:02 <dimitris> .. do not know what else to do here
13:53:04 <dimitris> TallTed: can we extend the shacl-shacl graph with Peter's additional checks?
13:53:29 <dimitris> sandro: yes we can fix bugs, as long as we keep the intent
13:54:46 <dimitris> hknublau: we cannot fix sh:pattern with shacl core
13:54:47 <TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/61 "problematic cases for pre-binding"
13:55:34 <dimitris> hknublau: in #61 "problematic cases for pre-binding" Andy helped me improve the definition and we can close the ticket
13:57:51 <TallTed> PROPOSED: WG accepts edits made in https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bfc4d92e52d203737b68ef0193a7fd599e49aedf and https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/348bc162dda1c71860c18b815ac99df2a3353fed as addressing previous resolutions
13:58:24 <TallTed> PROPOSED: WG accepts spec and test edits referenced by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Apr/0037.html as addressing previous resolutions
13:58:29 <hknublau> +1
13:58:30 <ipolikof> +1
13:58:39 <TallTed> +1
13:58:53 <jack_> +!
13:59:00 <dimitris> +1
13:59:11 <Nicky> +1
13:59:12 <simonstey> +1
13:59:14 <TallTed> RESOLVED: WG accepts spec and test edits referenced by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Apr/0037.html as addressing previous resolutions
13:59:34 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/60
14:00:28 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/59
14:00:31 <dimitris> hknublau: "requirements on sh:message not checked in test cases process" peter required for specific test cases to be allowed and I allowed them
14:01:20 <dimitris> I have to leave now, can someone else scribe?
14:02:36 <TallTed> scribenick: ipolikof
14:03:24 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/58
14:04:30 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/57
14:04:34 <ipolikof> hknublau: addressed this by clarifying
14:05:38 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#message (2.1.5)
14:05:39 <ipolikof> hknublau: two sections describing populations of the results message, normative section a little more precise than informative section
14:05:57 <ipolikof> little less precise rather
14:06:35 <ipolikof> hknublau: address by making the relevant part of informative section to be normative
14:07:18 <ipolikof> TallTed: it is better to put clarification in the normative section
14:07:39 <ipolikof> hknublau: can someone read this over to make sure the text is clear?
14:10:21 <ipolikof> simonstey: do we have tests for this?
14:10:33 <ipolikof> hknublau: yes
14:11:43 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/56
14:13:08 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/55
14:13:57 <ipolikof> hknublau: waiting on clarification from Peter
14:15:19 <ipolikof> hknublau: should we go back to discussing minInclusive, issue 68
14:16:45 <ipolikof> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/68
14:16:54 <sandro> (I need to go.   'Later everyone.)
14:17:05 <TallTed> PROPOSED: WG accepts handling of all issues 56-67 and 73, and believes they should be considered resolved, as recorded to date in https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues
14:17:15 <ipolikof> +1
14:17:17 <TallTed> +1
14:17:19 <simonstey> +1
14:17:26 <hknublau> +1
14:17:57 <jack_> +1
14:18:03 <TallTed> RESOLVED: WG accepts handling of all issues 56-67 and 73, and believes they should be considered resolved, as recorded to date in https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues
14:18:58 <jack_> I need to go now
14:19:10 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/68
14:19:36 <jack_> ciao
14:21:03 <ipolikof> TallTed: I will write a response to 68
14:21:15 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:21:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
14:21:21 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:21:43 <TallTed> trackbot, end meeting
14:21:43 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
14:21:43 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, hknublau, sandro, pano, dimitris, Nicky, present, ipolikof, simonstey, !
14:21:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:21:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
14:21:52 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
14:21:52 <RRSAgent> I see no action items