See also: IRC log
<Arnaud> zakmi, who's on the phone?
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 12 February Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/12-shapes-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 12 February Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/02/12-shapes-minutes.html
Arnaud: minutes of the meeting are updated, please review
<cygri> Ah, back to 2002
Arnaud: we still use basic perl script
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 30 and 31 of October 2014 F2F: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-shapes-minutes.html
Arnaud: Minutes from first F2F were not approved yet, due to tooling issues
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 30 and 31 of October 2014 F2F: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2014/10/31-shapes-minutes.html
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/pendingreview
cygri: Action-10 is done, I suggest we use revised version, David did not respond
Arnaud: Please update wiki accordingly
... Action-10 closed
... We should wait for another week regarding the next F2F meeting location
... Action-13 closed
... Action-14 closed
<Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/21
Arnaud: not sure if ISSUE-21 is critical to the WG
... Eric confirmed that ShEx is work in progress
<Labra> +q
Labra: It is clear that ShEx is evolving, members are in the WG, concentrating on SHACL
... e.g. closed shapes discussion potentially relevant to SHACL
Arnaud: Emails have covered this topic, but I don't want to close ticket without Peter's approval
Arnaud: Rush in getting first PWD out
<Arnaud> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-core/
Arnaud: May be a good start for FPWD
Holger: I invite a first round of feedback
<Labra> +q
<SimonSteyskal> ... chapter 2 seems detached and should maybe be moved to a seperate document
Jose: Surprised that my spec made it into a chapter of the spec
... would prefer to separate core language from SPARQL etc
Arnaud: I would expect Jose's section to go into an annex
+q
<ericP> my intention was to include various ways to define shacl in the semantics section with switches so the community could compare and provide feedback
<ericP> a la the owl primer
<Labra> +q
<ericP> we wouldn't necessarily have to carry that all the way through to REC but it would be a good way to solicit feedback
Holger: Layering is wrong, need to define core as a subset of full language
Labra: Need clear first section for "core language", then SPARQL mapping
<Labra> +q
Arnaud: Suggest to move this out of FPWD, risk being incomplete and premature
<ericP> i started with Jose's semantics 'cause he'd already HTML-ized them nicely
<ericP> we could add SPARQL and others as well
Labra: SPARQL needs to be moved out
... want to keep it in
<Labra> +q
cygri: F2F resolved that a normative mapping to SPARQL is needed
... various proposals for formalizing the semantics are being written
... it's premature to include any of them until this is resolved
... agree with Arnaud that Section 2 should be moved out for now
<Labra> if we exclude the semantics we should at least add a section about the abstract syntax
Arnaud: Delay decision until next week.
<Labra> and put all the sparql to a one separate section about mappings to sparql
+q
<cygri> Labra, the resolution was: “Define semantics using SPARQL as much as possible”
Jose: SPARQL should go into one section
<ericP> btw, i think the primer is good enough for FPWD
<Arnaud> ericp: you have a link to the latest primer?
<Labra> +q
<ericP> latest primer
<ericP> (that i know of -- open world, you know)
<ericP> getting the abstract syntax out made, i think, the beginning pallatable to a primer audience
<Labra> I disagree with having templates in the FPWD
<cygri> Labra, isn’t that an approved requirement?
<Labra> not
Yes, macros have been approved.
<cygri> Labra, https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Constraint_Macros
<Labra> but macros are not "sparql" templates
<ericP> that one needs a SPARQL/SPIN engine to impl shacl? i don't think that's approved
Arnaud: Macros could go into a different document
<Labra> you can define macros with some other construct
Eric, nobody said that
<cygri> Labra objects to templates, not to SPARQL
<Arnaud> primer: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates
<cygri> (or maybe to both)
<Labra> yes...I object to templates with sparql embedded
Arnaud: Review to see how much is missing for FPWD soon
<SimonSteyskal> +q
<Labra> but I don't object to mappings to sparql
<ericP> i'm still not clear one what one needs to impl shacl. does one need teh templates?
<Labra> the shacl core language should be implemented with or without a sparql engine
Eric, of course some sub-sets such as ShEx don't need to support the template mechanism. But that is a sub-set.
SimonSteyskal: Updated UCR for all resolutions
... could we publish User Stories + Requirements for now (i.e. rename Use Cases to User Stories)
... Separate user stories from more abstract use cases.
Arnaud: Editors should decide and have the freedom to reengineer document
<Labra> cygri...being able to compare shapes and having a higher level language
Eric, Labra, these requirements are coverd by the current draft.
<Labra> cygri, as an example the user story about publishing and describing linked data portals
Arnaud: no deadline, but sooner than later
<cygri> Labra, I don’t see anything in there that wouldn’t work if SHACL is defined with a SPARQL-backed template library
Arnaud: not clear whether changes to wiki were made, doesn't look like.
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve requirement 2.11.7 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Separation_of_structural_from_complex_constraints
<kcoyle> +q
kcoyle: Need better definition of what a complex constraint is compared to structured
<TallTed> +1 kcoyle clarity of what these things are that are being separated seems a necessity
cygri: What does the separation mean? In documents/spec?
<cygri> TallTed’s explanation makes sense to me, but the requirement needs rephrasing to match his account
TallTed: I think this is another way of saying "distinguish core from extension, complex, SPARQL, etc"
kcoyle: I like idea of levels, e.g. simpler primer
cygri: Would like to work on re-wording of the Requirement.
<cygri> yrs
<cygri> yes
<cygri> ACTION: cygri to propose a rephrasing of Req 2.11.7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/26-shapes-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Propose a rephrasing of req 2.11.7 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2015-03-05].
Arnaud: Unapproved requirements, some have not enough votes yet
<Labra> bye
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting