18:59:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:59:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/29-shapes-irc
18:59:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:59:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:59:17 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:59:17 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
18:59:18 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:59:18 <trackbot> Date: 29 January 2015
19:00:17 <Arnaud> zakim, this is shapes
19:00:17 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud; that matches DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM
19:00:24 <Arnaud> zakim, who is on the call?
19:00:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see [IPcaller], ericP, kcoyle, Arnaud
19:00:36 <Labra> Zakim [IPcaller] is labra
19:00:42 <Arnaud> Zakim, IPCaller is labra
19:00:42 <Zakim> +labra; got it
19:01:34 <Zakim> +Dimitris
19:02:20 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
19:02:29 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
19:02:29 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
19:02:30 <Zakim> + +1.908.251.aaaa
19:02:31 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
19:02:31 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
19:03:04 <pfps> zakim, aaaa is me
19:03:04 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
19:03:42 <Zakim> + +1.919.306.aabb
19:03:49 <SteveS> zakim, aabb is me
19:03:49 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
19:04:30 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
19:04:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see labra, ericP, kcoyle, Arnaud, Dimitris, TallTed (muted), pfps, SteveS
19:04:40 <Zakim> +Arthur_Ryman
19:04:46 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
19:04:46 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
19:05:05 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
19:05:05 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
19:05:12 <ArthurRyman> ArthurRyman has joined #shapes
19:05:39 <pfps> I'm also in a hotel so my connection is probably not very stable.
19:06:39 <Arnaud> scribe: labra
19:06:47 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
19:07:02 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.01.29
19:07:17 <Arnaud> topic: Admin
19:08:12 <Labra> postpone the acceptance of meeting for next meeting
19:08:34 <Labra> subtopic: next f2f meeting
19:09:00 <SteveS> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/F2F2
19:09:02 <Labra> Arnaud: there is a page a people can register there
19:09:23 <Labra> ... to facilitate the organizers
19:09:31 <Labra> ... number of seats and so on
19:09:48 <Labra> ... any information people provide will be useful
19:10:05 <Labra> ... in terms of catering...
19:10:53 <kcoyle> if no one volunteers, can we just do a $$ pool?
19:11:39 <Labra> Arnaud: if anyone can help with some sponsorship, please tell Arnaud
19:11:57 <Labra> Arnaud will provide more info about the agenda
19:13:06 <Labra> topic: Tracking Actions and Issues
19:13:15 <Labra> one action pending review
19:13:17 <Labra> action 7
19:13:24 <Arnaud> ACTION-7
19:13:24 <trackbot> ACTION-7 -- Arthur Ryman to For resource shapes -- due 2015-01-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
19:13:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/7
19:13:55 <Labra> arthur: it's done
19:14:11 <Labra> he modified the description
19:14:20 <pfps> fine by me
19:14:35 <Labra> close action-7
19:14:35 <trackbot> Closed action-7.
19:14:58 <Labra> Issue-20
19:15:26 <Labra> Arnaud asks if issue 20 can be closed
19:15:42 <pfps> issue-20 has been solved by the solution of issue-6
19:16:26 <pfps> issue-20 can be closed as far as I am concerned
19:16:33 <Labra> Resolved: close issue-20
19:16:33 <trackbot> Closed issue-20.
19:17:26 <Labra> Arnaud: there are several issues related to user stores
19:17:44 <Labra> ... people should check the issues and the owner of the story should address
19:17:57 <Labra> ... sending an email to address the issue
19:18:15 <Labra> ... so we can close the issues at next call
19:18:41 <Labra> topic: User Stories
19:19:02 <Labra> Arnaud asks the editors to report any problems or the progress
19:19:24 <Labra> ... a user story has been proposed
19:19:50 <Labra> karen: many of the stories are also use cases
19:20:02 <Labra> ... maybe it is better to have one list
19:20:22 <Labra> ... instead of two lists: user stories + use cases
19:21:07 <Labra> Arnaud: keep requirements on hold by now
19:21:24 <pfps> I gave the document a look.  It appears to me to be a good representation of the current status of user stories, and that is fine for a FPWD.
19:21:51 <kcoyle> jose labra
19:22:01 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S38_Describing_and_Validating_Linked_Data_portals
19:22:04 <Labra> Arnaud: Labra proposed a new user story
19:22:18 <kcoyle> q+
19:22:22 <ArthurRyman> +q
19:22:42 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:23:49 <pfps> I'm not sure that S38 has any constraints or shapes involved.  I would like to see an example of what sort of "description" is needed.
19:25:15 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:26:08 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S24:_Open_Content_Model
19:27:10 <kcoyle> new user story: multiple sources of information with some data similarities; can apply different shapes over the aggregation as needed.
19:27:25 <kcoyle> does that do it? arthur?
19:27:42 <ArthurRyman> yes
19:27:52 <pfps> OK, but then put some examples it.
19:27:58 <pfps> s/it/in/
19:28:43 <Labra> Arnaud: let's leave it at that for now
19:29:04 <Labra> topic: Requirements
19:29:35 <Labra> Arnaud: put in the draft only the requirements that have been approved
19:29:58 <ericP> scribe: ericP
19:30:05 <Labra> Arnaud: tried to identify the requirement that had no objections
19:30:15 <ericP> Arnaud: Peter pointed out that one req didn't have required support and objected to a few so I removed those
19:30:25 <ericP> PROPOSAL: Approve requirements 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, 2.6.5, 2.6.6, 2.6.7, 2.7.3, 2.10, 2.10.3, 2.11.5
19:30:34 <pfps> +1
19:30:39 <ericP> ... i believe that the proposal in the agenda have no objections
19:30:56 <ericP> ... i may have missed some, but we can get these out of the way
19:31:11 <ericP> +1
19:31:17 <Labra> +1
19:31:19 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:31:24 <SteveS> +1
19:31:25 <Dimitris> +1
19:31:26 <TallTed> +1
19:31:35 <kcoyle> +1
19:31:49 <ericP> RESOLVED: Approve requirements 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, 2.6.5, 2.6.6, 2.6.7, 2.7.3, 2.10, 2.10.3, 2.11.5
19:32:22 <ericP> Arnaud: when there are objections, i encourage folks to bring them up in email and try to resolve
19:32:51 <ericP> ... i expect to spend significant time at the f2f going over those with objectsion
19:33:18 <ericP> ... if we emerge from the F2F with concensus, we can issue a FPWD soon
19:33:39 <ericP> topic: CONSTRAINTS proposal
19:34:26 <ericP> pfps: this goes back to classes vs. shapes
19:34:42 <ericP> ... in my view, the WG should not define, declare classes
19:34:57 <ericP> ... where classes are things that will be the object of an rdf:type arc
19:35:17 <ericP> ... it's not in our charter to do that. it would be providing a new counter for RDF and RDFS (and OWL)
19:35:38 <ericP> ... the CONSTRAINTS proposal is OSLC written more formally
19:35:52 <ericP> ... it defines shapes or constraints and gives each one scope.
19:36:04 <ericP> ... it leaves open what those shapes are supposed to be
19:36:12 <ericP> ... it's the "control" part
19:36:24 <ericP> ... it's clear that we are not defing classes.
19:37:07 <ericP> Arnaud: so you say "i don't care what you call it, it's the intent that matters"
19:37:30 <ArthurRyman> +q
19:37:33 <ericP> ... maybe it's not possible to separate, but Q's about CONSTRAINTS?
19:37:55 <ericP> ... it didn't seem to me to be such an "opposing view"
19:38:08 <kcoyle> q+
19:38:25 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:38:29 <ericP> pfps, would https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates.html be compatible with CONSTRAINTS?
19:38:50 <ericP> ArthurRyman: in your proposal, you talk about rdfs entailment. can't we separate that from the shapes issue?
19:40:15 <ericP> ... i.e. entailment may occur, but (like SPARQL) shapes step in after inference?
19:40:54 <ericP> ... we don't care how we got the graph
19:41:14 <ericP> pfps: i think if you have rdfs in it, it would be foolhardy to ignore them
19:41:35 <ericP> ArthurRyman: maybe say "you SHOULD" work on the closure
19:42:01 <ericP> ... can the definition of shapes purely on a graph
19:42:14 <ericP> pfps: i won't object, but i think it's a bad idea
19:42:35 <ericP> Arnaud: we have a tracker issue about inference
19:42:35 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:42:51 <ericP> kcoyle: how does this relate to ShEx?
19:43:00 <ericP> pfps: pretty much orthogonal
19:43:12 <ericP> ... ShEx has no control structure and this provides that.
19:43:36 <ericP> s/this provides/CONSTRAINTS provides/
19:44:47 <ericP> ericP: we've talked about ways to start validation. is CONSTRAINTS an umbrella?
19:45:13 <ericP> pfps: yes. i started with the OSLC triggers plus Global
19:47:20 <ericP> pfps: this is similar to SPIN; SPIN has a similar control structure.
19:48:21 <ericP> Arnaud: i note that in your proposal, you defer the definition of shapes
19:49:06 <ericP> topic: Classes vs. Shapes
19:50:07 <ericP> Arnaud: even though folks were favorable about LDOM, there was significant pushback abouut classes being shapes
19:51:23 <ericP> -> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates.html LDOM--
19:52:33 <ericP> Arnaud: on the fly, ericP is making another proposal
19:52:46 <ericP> ... i don't know what folks can grasp from this
19:54:17 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:54:27 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:55:11 <Labra> q+
19:55:16 <ericP> ArthurRyman: it looks like it lapses back into classes at the end
19:55:23 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:55:23 <ericP> ericP: i wasn't thorough at the end
19:55:33 <ericP> ArthurRyman: otherwise looks good
19:55:46 <ericP> Labra: my "language vs. tech" proposal was in this direction
19:55:57 <ericP> ... one langauge to capture the constraints with clear semantics
19:56:04 <ericP> ... and separate that from the triggers
19:56:19 <ericP> ... also wanted to separate the SPARQL
19:56:20 <pfps> This is looking much better.  There are some remnants of the class approach in property declarations.
19:56:38 <ericP> ... we can have a clean language mappable to SPARQL but without SPARQL embedded
19:57:15 <ericP> Arnaud: i'd like holger's input
19:58:08 <ericP> ... he may still argue that he doesn't see the diff between a shape and a class
19:58:30 <ericP> ... he was arguing that separating classes and shapes would confuse people
19:59:28 <ericP> ... opposite args on the list were that they were separate and ignoring that adds complexity
20:00:29 <ericP> ... ericP, add your name as an editor so it doesn't pretend to be holger's words (he hasn't even seen it yet)
<ericP> ... but it seems like the different proposals are actually not that far apart from each other and i think we can resolve the differences
<ericP> ... i think this is progress.
20:00:55 <ericP> topic: disconnected shapes
20:01:21 <ericP> ArthurRyman: pfps raised issues on user store S35. i think i addressed them
<ericP> pfps: we might be done with this, I'll have another look
20:02:14 <Zakim> -pfps
20:02:21 <Zakim> -SteveS
20:02:49 <Zakim> -Arthur_Ryman
20:02:51 <Zakim> -kcoyle
20:02:53 <Zakim> -TallTed
20:02:54 <Zakim> -Dimitris
20:02:55 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:02:55 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:02:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ericP, kcoyle, Arnaud, labra, Dimitris, TallTed, +1.908.251.aaaa, pfps, SteveS, Arthur_Ryman
<ericP> Present: ericP, kcoyle, Arnaud, labra, Dimitris, TallTed, pfps, +1.919.306.aabb, SteveS, Arthur_Ryman
20:02:58 <Zakim> -ericP
20:03:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:03:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/29-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:03:03 <Zakim> -labra
20:03:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:03:04 <RRSAgent> I see no action items