See also: IRC log
zakim; ??P1 is me
<Dimitris> zakim +30694579aabb is me
<scribe> scribe: SimonSteyskal
<pfps> the minutes look fine to me
RESOLUTION: minutes from 8 January 2015 approved without objections http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-shapes-minutes.html
Arnaud: should we close open issues?
pfps: resource shapes description is there; i cannot understand it based on the description only
...: description should be more elaborated
ArthurRyman: i will respond to peters comments
ericP: keep issue open till peter has no furter objections
<pfps> it's not that the description of Resource Shapes needs to be elaborated, it's that there should be a description of how you use Resource Shapes for validation
RESOLUTION: issue 8-9 are closed with no objections
Arnaud: simon and karen are working on a document capturing use cases and requirments
...: w3c is moving to github, eric has set up a repo
Arnaud: request for everyone who wants write access -> create userid on github and get in touch with eric to get access
ArthurRyman: what we are using github for?
Arnaud: for working on documents collaboratively
...: if anyone wants to work with mercurial instead, you are free to do so
... no issues were raised, but many issues have pending review
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/pendingreview
...: proposal to close some of the issues
pfps: issue 6 brings up an interesting
... thing; that shexc is part of oslc
... this little partial solutions in our stories should be really solutions and if shexc needs oslc to propose a solution than it should be stated so
... I got a shape/something and a graph
... and I want that all the "something" have a particular shape
... I cannot read the shexc example and then look in the wiki to understand it
Arnaud: I wanted the authors of the stories to adress issues which were raised against them
... no marking them as pending review
... we should let issue 6 open but i propose to close all the others
... close issue 7/10/18/19
... no urge to close them, leave them open till next week
... is group ok with peter closing the issues if he was able to check/review them
... (yes)
... if you address issue mark them as pending review
Arnaud: decided that before we get into use cases we should start writing stories
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-ucr.html
Arnaud: editors should take the lead in creating content of the document
kcoyle: big differences are number of user stories in both WGs we are comparing (shapes & ldp)
... maybe we should reduce the number?
Arnaud: we have all the stories we have accepted, I dont know how much duplication we have and how much people would care if their story gets removed
... editors could try to perform some merge/grey them out and the group could review that
... most likely some issues will come up (authors brace yourselves)
+1
<kcoyle> ok with me
scribe: holger added a story and we should talk about that
<hknublau> +q
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S8:_Checking_RDF_node_type
hknublau: story about rdf node type (whether something is a URI, blank node... )
Arnaud: holger added S8 to the document and questions is if group accepts this story
s/hölger/holger
scribe: we could wait to next week to formally approve it
<pfps> I don't like the story, but it is a story that should be considered.
scribe: S8 took over an old story slot
... thus the "low" number
... if people have questions regarding this story, ask questions and we will approve it(or not) next week
<ArthurRyman> +1 for S8
Arnaud: we have this wikipage where we have collected some requirements
... we agreed to only talk about reqs. which were endorsed by more than 2 people
... instead of voting during the call we should vote in the wiki
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements
<ArthurRyman> where do we put the votes?
Arnaud: if you object to certain reqs than elaborate on that
<pfps> I'm assuming that the "default" vote is +1
<labra> +1
<Dimitris> +1
Arnaud: are people ok in approving this proposal?
+1
<kcoyle> +1
scribe: I will monitor the reqs list and will propose to accept all of those which have no -1 votes on them
... we could start discussing some of the requirements now
ericP: my issue was that declaration of property value types is unambiquitious
... 3 different cases we should consider
<pfps> YUK!
pfps: I see no difference in being 5 an integer and dick cheney a ??
ericP: OWL makes a sharp distinction between object and datatype properties
pfps: ease of use is a very seductive insent
... form vs. meaning
ArthurRyman: I didnt understand why peter thought that resource shapes are broken?
pfps: because it confuses form and meaning (actual syntax = meaning)
ArthurRyman: resource shapes were defined to check interface contracts (oslc)
... there is a difference between int and integer
... rs are defined to specify interfaces for applications
<ericP> FILTER (sameNode("5"^^xsd:byte, "5"^^xsd:integer)) => false
(some discussion on whether "5"^^xsd:int and "5"^^xsd:integer is/should be the same thing)
<ericP> FILTER ("5"^^xsd:byte = "5"^^xsd:integer) => true
<ericP> SPARQL's use of the XSD numeric types
<ericP> note that XSD doesn't have another category analagous to numerics
Arnaud: maybe we should follow eric's suggestion and split that req. up
... but leave it with that by now
... if you do have objections, mark them so that we can discuss them
<BartvanLeeuwen> bye