12:58:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:58:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-shapes-irc
12:58:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:58:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
12:58:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:58:04 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
12:58:05 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:58:05 <trackbot> Date: 10 May 2017
12:58:20 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:58:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:58:24 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
12:58:33 <TallTed> present+
12:58:36 <TallTed> chair: TallTed
12:59:32 <Jack_> present+
12:59:40 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF Data Shapes WG - current agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.05.10
13:00:29 <simonstey_> present+
13:00:30 <ipolikof> ipolikof has joined #shapes
13:01:48 <ipolikof> present+
13:02:56 <sandro> present+
13:03:11 <hknublau> present+
13:03:53 <Jack_> I cannot dial  in on audio
13:04:44 <sandro> Jack_, are you saying webex isn't working, or you're not able to be on the phone right now?
13:05:46 <Jack_> It 'did' let me in, but I heard no one speaking so I hung up and tried again, and now I cannot get to the passcode. I'll try a cell phone.
13:07:16 <sandro> scribe: sandro
13:07:16 <TallTed> scribenick: sandro
13:07:24 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 03 May 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/05/03-shapes-minutes.html
13:07:29 <hknublau> +1
13:07:32 <ipolikof> +1
13:07:47 <Jack_> +1
13:07:53 <TallTed> +1
13:07:53 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 03 May 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/05/03-shapes-minutes.html
13:08:23 <sandro> TallTed: Likely regrets on the 24th
13:08:38 <TallTed> TOPIC: Open Issues: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues
13:09:31 <sandro> ipolikof: The Commenter-Not-Satisfied issues are all formal objections, linked
13:10:03 <sandro> TallTed: Tag for FO?
13:10:12 <sandro> sandro: not necessary, given the small number overall
13:10:55 <sandro> sandro: let's close these if-and-when we're settled we don't plan to work on it more
13:11:08 <TallTed> TOPIC: Formal Objections: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Formal_Objection_Status
13:12:12 <sandro> ipolikof: Do we need prfo0 ?
13:12:40 <sandro> TallTed: Is saw Peter said he'd withdraw it if we'd consider / vote to accept new ones
13:12:54 <sandro> ipolikof: But that sounds like what we originally said, doesn't it?
13:13:34 <TallTed> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017May/0019.html
13:13:41 <sandro> ipolikof: Maybe we should ask him to clarify on this?
13:14:18 <sandro> TallTed: It was in the minutes.   Maybe there's a page we need to update.
13:15:00 <sandro> TallTed: Who wants to followup with Peter
13:15:10 <sandro> ipolikof: I'll do it
13:15:35 <TallTed> moving on to https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/PRFO1
13:15:47 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #shapes
13:16:39 <sandro> ipolikof: Peter labels it 'interoperability'.    He wants this mode of checking
13:17:18 <sandro> ipolikof: I didn't see any new information since CR objection, except Peter's saying it doesn't check everything, but that's known
13:17:53 <sandro> TallTed: I think different results from different engines does not conform to my idea of interoperability
13:18:10 <sandro> ipolikof: "Lack of syntax-checking mode"
13:18:27 <Jack_> that does seem like what he is saying
13:18:46 <sandro> hknublau: We can continue to say everyone's free to check their shapes graph; this can be tested beforehand by the tool of your choice
13:19:02 <sandro> TallTed: This is about invalid shapes graph's producing different results.
13:19:25 <sandro> ipolikof: Right.   Shacl-for-shacl checks most of these.
13:20:42 <sandro> sandro: What is Peter expecting different from the Director?
13:20:57 <sandro> ipolikof: Sh4sh doesn't check everything
13:21:07 <sandro> sandro: But the Director understood that perfectly well
13:21:13 <sandro> ipolikof: I told him that.
13:21:30 <pano> pano has joined #shapes
13:21:31 <sandro> sandro: Sounds to me like there's not much more we can do on this
13:22:06 <sandro> TallTed: Sounds like there's nothing new we can do here
13:22:57 <TallTed> TallTed: I think PRFO1 has already been addressed to Director's satisfaction, even if imperfect
13:23:13 <pano> present+
13:23:17 <sandro> sandro: Possible Peter just raised it again to get it in front of the W3C Advisory Committee again
13:23:22 <TallTed> onward to path syntax - https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/PRFO2
13:24:06 <sandro> ipolikof: Peter wrote the original Path rules, oddly
13:24:53 <sandro> hknublau: I think we've done what we can.  Peter gave us two test cases, of edge cases, where things that look like paths are lists.   But I think we've taken this as far as we can and need to agree to disagree.
13:25:06 <sandro> TallTed: So we believe it's handled by the testing
13:25:38 <sandro> ipolikof: Peter says shapes are too strict because users may want to put in comments, but sh4sh checks this.   No evidence of lack of functionality.
13:25:53 <sandro> ... also, one path that users may misinterpret
13:26:12 <sandro> ... but there are tests that prove impls don't misinterpret
13:26:26 <sandro> sandro: Peter's proposal?
13:27:03 <sandro> ipolikof: He offered new rules, but it's late in the game, and we don't have experience with the new rules.   The current ones have been stable for months.
13:27:40 <sandro> ... the issue seems minor, and the remedy seems risky.   It would require new tests...
13:27:41 <sandro> TallTed: new CR
13:28:17 <sandro> sandro: Would his new rules require impls to change?   If not, probably not new CR
13:28:45 <sandro> ipolikof: Illformed might not be illformed.  Not sure.
13:29:07 <sandro> TallTed: That makes this seem like a 1.1 or 2.0 feature
13:29:47 <sandro> sandro: I'm hearing a sense that this isn't terribly important
13:29:59 <Nicky> Nicky has joined #shapes
13:31:32 <sandro> sandro: We could ask Peter for more compelling use case
13:31:38 <TallTed> PROPOSAL: Lacking a compelling use case, the WG feels that this incremental improvement is suitable for SHACL 1.1/2.0, but is not necessary for SHACL 1.0.
13:31:43 <Nicky> present+
13:31:58 <ipolikof> +1
13:32:00 <hknublau> +1
13:32:03 <sandro> hknublau: People can put native comments into turtle or xml file
13:32:05 <pano> +1
13:32:19 <simonstey> +1
13:32:29 <sandro> ipolikof: I could add this to postponed features
13:32:49 <sandro> hknublau: I think this problem is too small to merit that
13:32:58 <TallTed> +1
13:33:06 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Lacking a compelling use case, the WG feels that this incremental improvement is suitable for SHACL 1.1/2.0, but is not necessary for SHACL 1.0.
13:33:20 <Jack_> +1
13:34:25 <sandro> (That resolution is about PRFO2, Property Path Synax objection)
13:34:56 <sandro> aka https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/75
13:34:56 <TallTed> PROPOSED: WG feels that PRFO1 was addressed sufficiently in its prior incarnation as CRFO2.
13:34:59 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer
13:34:59 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-shapes-irc#T13-34-59
13:35:05 <hknublau> +1
13:35:06 <ipolikof> +1
13:35:12 <Jack_> +1
13:35:13 <simonstey> +1
13:35:16 <sandro> +1
13:35:17 <TallTed> +1
13:35:30 <TallTed> RESOLVED: WG feels that PRFO1 was addressed sufficiently in its prior incarnation as CRFO2.
13:35:30 <TallTed> by request, skipping ahead to SHACL definition of pre-binding - https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/PRFO4
13:35:51 <TallTed> s/this incremental improvement/incremental improvement in PRFO2/
13:36:57 <sandro> hknublau: The bulk of PRFO4 is that we're painting over the problems
13:37:19 <sandro> ... but this is the best solution we've got so far; Peter's suggestion didn't help
13:37:42 <hknublau> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#pre-binding
13:37:45 <sandro> ... He asked one detail yesterday
13:38:02 <sandro> ... this is the current defn in draft
13:38:42 <sandro> ... a couple of syntax rules, then four blue boxes.   This was all copied from Andy Seaborne's work for sparql CG.
13:39:59 <sandro> ... When I looked at this, thinking about Peter's comment, I noticed that these two blue boxes can be deleted, as obsolete by last weeks clarification about returning all variables
13:40:21 <sandro> ... but this text was written to handle the case that doesn't happen any more
13:40:56 <simonstey> +q
13:41:01 <sandro> ... so this should address Peter's most recently found problem
13:41:21 <sandro> ... the defn was only for subselects, but it turned out it would also be allowed to top level select, which was never the intention
13:41:40 <sandro> ... some examples in document do not align with this defn, and he's right, this is a glitch
13:41:49 <sandro> ... because of our copying it from SPARQL
13:42:15 <sandro> ... we can just delete the first two blue boxes, about Variable Remapping
13:42:17 <simonstey> q-
13:42:41 <sandro> ... and the remaining two, replace PrjMap(E) with E
13:42:58 <sandro> ... so this should solve glitch
13:44:04 <sandro> ... it was only for the case where subselect didn't project out all the variables, but now we've said all subselects much return all prebound variables
13:44:22 <sandro> ... SPARQL CG needs this more complex solution, because they can't just exclude syntax like we can
13:44:59 <simonstey> +q
13:45:55 <sandro> simonstey: In defn values insertion, replace x, I was wondering if this X is the same as in remapping -- or is this a different X?   Is it an algebraix expression?
13:46:26 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Editorial correction to Appendix A, delete "DEFINITION: Projection Expression Variable Remapping" and "DEFINITION: Variable Remapping" which were only required for sub-selects which did not project all variables, because we already require all variables be projected by such sub-selects. Examples and tests already carry intent, which is then correctly conveyed by remainder of Appendix A.
13:46:27 <sandro> hknublau: No, it's another one.   He's defining a new function, and X is just the formal parameter, an algebra object
13:46:57 <hknublau> +1
13:47:10 <simonstey> +1
13:47:11 <TallTed> +1
13:47:12 <ipolikof> +1
13:47:12 <Nicky> +1
13:47:13 <sandro> +1 makes sense, at my level of understanding
13:47:17 <pano> +1
13:47:22 <Jack_> +1
13:47:55 <TallTed> s/PROPOSED: Editorial/PROPOSED: Address PRFO4 with editorial/
13:48:01 <hknublau> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-exists/commits/gh-pages
13:48:04 <simonstey> thx
13:48:21 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Address PRFO4 with editorial correction to Appendix A, delete "DEFINITION: Projection Expression Variable Remapping" and "DEFINITION: Variable Remapping" which were only required for sub-selects which did not project all variables, because we already require all variables be projected by such sub-selects. Examples and tests already carry intent, which is then correctly conveyed by remainder of Appendix A.
13:48:59 <sandro> TallTed: We owe thanks to Peter for this improvement
13:49:18 <TallTed> and the last, "SHACL syntax rules make certain shapes ill formed" - https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/PRFO3
13:49:38 <sandro> hknublau: Now fixed in http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#pre-binding
13:50:18 <sandro> PRFO3
13:50:32 <sandro> ipolikof: He doesn't like syntax restrictions
13:50:46 <sandro> hknublau: No loss of expressive power, because we have workarounds
13:50:51 <simonstey> +q
13:50:54 <sandro> ipolikof: and all of this is checked in sh4sh
13:51:12 <hknublau> ack simonstey
13:51:34 <sandro> simonstey: Especially for this case, this is a prime example of where sh:and is useful/required.
13:52:07 <sandro> ... You need to kind of catch with this workaround.  A perfect example of why we included sh:and, so you can express something like that.   If we allowed multiple minCounts
13:52:36 <sandro> ... and maybe in other scenarios, ...
13:53:14 <sandro> ... I don't feel that this is like that, this is a scenario where you need sh:and.  It's a stronger argument, rather than just saying it's a workaround
13:53:41 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Lacking a real-world use case which cannot be addressed by SHACL as currently defined, WG feels that PRFO3 was addressed sufficiently in its prior incarnation as CRFO1.
13:53:44 <sandro> ipolikof: I agree.  The example he provided, xsd:int and xsd:integer, they probably meant *either*, and for that case we have sh:or
13:53:51 <hknublau> +1
13:54:04 <simonstey> +1
13:54:05 <pano> +1
13:54:07 <Nicky> +1
13:54:11 <Jack_> +1
13:54:23 <ipolikof> +1
13:54:25 <TallTed> +1
13:54:33 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Lacking a real-world use case which cannot be addressed by SHACL as currently defined, WG feels that PRFO3 was addressed sufficiently in its prior incarnation as CRFO1.
13:55:45 <TallTed> TOPIC: Features At Risk
13:55:53 <sandro> TallTed: Okay to extend meeting?  Hearing no objection....
13:56:24 <sandro> TallTed: Given test results, two green for everything, I thing we can keep the At Risks
13:56:35 <sandro> ipolikof: SHACL-SPARQL with two impls seems okay
13:57:06 <sandro> TallTed: ToDos?
13:57:26 <sandro> hknublau: Old thing from Arnaud, given no feedback on this, I'd say we just leave it as it is
13:57:41 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#constraint-components-validators
13:58:12 <sandro> hknublau: Let's just remove the red sentence
13:58:19 <sandro> TallTed: Sure, that's editorial
13:58:27 <sandro> sandro: agreed
13:58:59 <TallTed> TallTed: All Features at Risk have 2 implementations!  No more risk!
13:59:33 <sandro> hknublau:Re  lessThan-scope syntax rules (generalized RDF)  -- came out of discussion with Tim
13:59:52 <sandro> ... he wanted to keep this more open, and we're okay with that
14:00:55 <sandro> hknublau: It's not possible to write a test case for this, so I'd like to remove the at-risk, keeping the rule
14:01:18 <sandro> ipolikof: Removing the "At Risk", and keeping the feature.
14:01:52 <sandro> sandro: Can't be tested because none of platforms supports generalized RDF?
14:01:58 <sandro> ipolikof: Right
14:02:43 <sandro> sandro: I'm a fan of generalized RDF, but this seems like a pretty tiny bit.
14:03:02 <sandro> simonstey: Maybe remove At Risk but add sentence about the future
14:03:51 <sandro> sandro: Why not remove syntax rules?
14:05:20 <sandro> hknublau: Suddenly this property will show up on forms, where it's allowed.   Impls will have to handle it, even if it can't occur
14:05:38 <sandro> sandro: But in a non-general RDF system it can't occur, so no need to check it
14:06:13 <sandro> ipolikof: If you allow people to create just shapes, then you have to do something with them.
14:07:13 <sandro> hknublau: I don't get how this use case is of interest, a literal having a property of another literal, ....
14:08:00 <sandro> sandro: Is this because they're constant?
14:08:45 <sandro> hknublau: that value of lessThan is a property, so if you say in a shape that it has a lessThan relationship to some property, then it means the subject must be less than the value of that property
14:09:19 <sandro> ... the original use case was about startDate alsways before endDate
14:09:32 <sandro> ... which is perfectly fine for Resources
14:09:40 <sandro> ... but does a Literal have a start date
14:10:23 <sandro> Jack_: Maybe in the case where graphs are reified?  That's a case where a literal might have a start date?
14:10:40 <sandro> s/Jack_/Pano/
14:12:04 <sandro> sandro: Let's go the way hknublau is suggesting, and see if the Director pushed back.  None of us cares strongly, but we don't see the motivation.
14:12:35 <TallTed> PROPOSED: remove At Risk on all features
14:12:52 <ipolikof> +1
14:12:54 <Jack_> +1
14:12:59 <TallTed> +1
14:12:59 <simonstey> +1
14:13:01 <pano> +1
14:13:02 <sandro> +1
14:13:04 <Nicky> +1
14:13:10 <hknublau> +1
14:13:10 <TallTed> RESOLVED: remove At Risk on all features
14:13:59 <TallTed> TOPIC: Next Steps towards PR
14:14:06 <sandro> sandro: no need to keep anything in draft for historical, just make it what makes sense to new readers
14:14:27 <TallTed> PROPOSED: submit Transition Request for PR
14:14:33 <ipolikof> +1
14:14:35 <sandro> +1
14:14:39 <TallTed> +1
14:14:40 <pano> +1
14:14:43 <Jack_> +1
14:14:47 <simonstey> +1
14:14:53 <TallTed> RESOLVED: submit Transition Request for PR
14:15:17 <Nicky> +1
14:15:30 <hknublau> +1
14:15:34 <hknublau> * even later
14:15:54 <sandro> sandro: I'll send out transition request and scheduling poll.
14:16:49 <TallTed> barring objection -- ADJOURNED!
14:16:57 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
14:16:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
14:17:01 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:02:01 <Zakim> Zakim has left #shapes
19:10:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
19:10:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/10-shapes-irc