<jack_> +present

<TallTed> scribenick: dimitris

<scribe> scribenick: dimitris

<TallTed> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 19 April 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html

<ipolikof> +1

<Nicky> +1

<jack_> +1

<pano> +1

<TallTed> +1

<hknublau> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 19 April 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html

<TallTed> next call to be same time, Wednesday 2017.05.03

Open Issues

TallTed: next meeting is next week, same time

<TallTed> see https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues

TallTed: Holger, can you comment on problems with new issues?

hknublau: first issue, denial of service, trivial issue, added text to address it
... 2nd case: non-redunant multiple sh:minInclusive, Peter created an example with multiple sh:minInclusive and rationals for allowing multiple min inclusive values
... it is better to have a more constrained language and would like to resolve this issue this way

<hknublau> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#MinInclusiveConstraintComponent

ipolikof: peter originally agreed with this but after a month said he didn't agree with dissalowing multiple constraints in cases like sh:minInclusibe
... I am not sure what this example means

hknublau: he can use an and to have the same result

sandro: he seems to like everything clearly defined
... the value in rdf in the string and could be pointing rdf semantics
... the xsd:dateTime semantics is a bit strange, cannot recall exact

TallTed: one is more restrictive than the other

<ipolikof> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Apr/0068.html

sandro: let's look at the other issues

hknublau: next one is #67 "test cases process removes too much"
... other people were able to submit test reports but described the process more precisely
... #65 "behaviour of SHACL Core implementation on shapes graphs with ill-formed SHACL-SPARQL constructs"
... this is on what happens with shacl core and shacl sparql

TallTed: looks like the issue is about shacl core signaling an error when encounters things it doesn't know

<simonstey> dimitris: it is not easy to identify shacl-sparql

ipolikof: we can extend shacl-shacl like shacl-shacl-core that can identify such cases

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

hknublau: this is not easy as there can be extensions and annotations

ipolikof: prefer an editorial comment like only terms defined here have semantics in shacl core

simonstey: shacl processors that can pass shacl-core tests and not shacl-sparql tests are shacl-core processors

hknublau: we do not have a pure shacl-core concept e.g. shacl-sparql to validate shapes graph in a shacl-core mode

<simonstey> This section defines the built-in SHACL Core constraint components that MUST be supported by all SHACL Core processors.

<simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#core-components

<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.

<simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-constraints-syntax

<simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#conformance

<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

<ipolikof> +1

<hknublau> * Could we go for a bit longer today? Only 17 minutes left.

<simonstey> +1

<jack_> +1

<sandro> +1

+1

<hknublau> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: 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

hknublau: #63 is similar to this

<ipolikof> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes-recursion

<TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/64

ipolikof: wrt issue #64 recursion is left unspecified in the spec and the comment is that shacl-shacl does not identify recursion

<simonstey> +q

TallTed: we have discussed this a lot and we had 2 options: implementation can do anything or not

simonstey: we cannot require implementation to check this

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/62

hknublau: issue #62 we never claimed that shacl-shacl can test everything
... do not know what else to do here

TallTed: can we extend the shacl-shacl graph with Peter's additional checks?

sandro: yes we can fix bugs, as long as we keep the intent

hknublau: we cannot fix sh:pattern with shacl core

<TallTed> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/61"problematic cases for pre-binding"

hknublau: in #61 "problematic cases for pre-binding" Andy helped me improve the definition and we can close the ticket

<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

<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

<hknublau> +1

<ipolikof> +1

<TallTed> +1

<jack_> +!

+1

<Nicky> +1

<simonstey> +1

RESOLUTION: 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

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/60

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/59

hknublau: "requirements on sh:message not checked in test cases process" peter required for specific test cases to be allowed and I allowed them

I have to leave now, can someone else scribe?

<TallTed> scribenick: ipolikof

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/58

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/57

hknublau: addressed this by clarifying

<simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#message (2.1.5)

hknublau: two sections describing populations of the results message, normative section a little more precise than informative section

little less precise rather

hknublau: address by making the relevant part of informative section to be normative

TallTed: it is better to put clarification in the normative section

hknublau: can someone read this over to make sure the text is clear?

simonstey: do we have tests for this?

hknublau: yes

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/56

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/55

hknublau: waiting on clarification from Peter
... should we go back to discussing minInclusive, issue 68

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/68

<sandro> (I need to go. 'Later everyone.)

<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

+1

<TallTed> +1

<simonstey> +1

<hknublau> +1

<jack_> +1

RESOLUTION: 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

<jack_> I need to go now

<simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/68

<jack_> ciao

TallTed: I will write a response to 68

<TallTed> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: TallTed, hknublau, sandro, pano, dimitris, Nicky, present, ipolikof, simonstey, !
Present: TallTed hknublau sandro pano dimitris Nicky present ipolikof simonstey !
Found ScribeNick: dimitris
Found ScribeNick: dimitris
Found ScribeNick: ipolikof
Inferring Scribes: dimitris, ipolikof
Scribes: dimitris, ipolikof
ScribeNicks: dimitris, ipolikof
Found Date: 26 Apr 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/04/26-shapes-minutes.html
People with action items: