17:59:34 RRSAgent has joined #shapes 17:59:34 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/12-shapes-irc 17:59:36 RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes 17:59:36 Zakim has joined #shapes 17:59:38 Zakim, this will be SHAPES 17:59:38 ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute 17:59:39 Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference 17:59:39 Date: 12 March 2015 18:00:46 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:00:46 DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has not yet started, cygri 18:00:48 On IRC I see RRSAgent, cygri, kcoyle, Labra, hknublau, SimonSteyskal, TallTed, Arnaud, ericP, rhiaro, trackbot 18:01:11 zakim, this is shapes 18:01:11 ok, Arnaud; that matches DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM 18:01:22 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:01:23 On the phone I see ??P1, +1.416.926.aaaa, kcoyle, ??P6, ericP, Arnaud 18:01:26 pfps has joined #shapes 18:01:39 zakim, ??P6 is me 18:01:39 +cygri; got it 18:01:42 zakim, ??P1 is me 18:01:42 +SimonSteyskal; got it 18:01:49 +[IPcaller] 18:02:00 zakim, mute me 18:02:00 cygri should now be muted 18:02:03 hsolbrig has joined #shapes 18:02:05 +pfps 18:02:08 +[IPcaller.a] 18:02:25 zakim, IPcaller.a is hsolbrig 18:02:25 +hsolbrig; got it 18:02:31 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:02:31 On the phone I see SimonSteyskal, +1.416.926.aaaa, kcoyle, cygri (muted), ericP, Arnaud, [IPcaller], pfps, hsolbrig 18:02:42 zakim, [IPcaller] is labra 18:02:42 +labra; got it 18:02:48 +[IPcaller] 18:02:54 zakim, aaaa is arthurryman 18:02:54 +arthurryman; got it 18:03:03 zakim [IPcaller] is me 18:03:18 Arnaud: I can scribe today 18:03:24 Dimitris has joined #shapes 18:04:54 +Dimitris 18:04:55 ArthurRyman has joined #shapes 18:05:28 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:05:28 On the phone I see SimonSteyskal, arthurryman, kcoyle, cygri (muted), ericP, Arnaud, labra, pfps, hsolbrig, [IPcaller], Dimitris 18:05:43 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 18:05:43 +hknublau; got it 18:05:46 scribe: kcoyle agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.03.12 chair: Arnaud 18:06:07 topic: Admin Arnaud: Minutes from last meeting 18:06:14 minutes looked fine to me 18:06:19 PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 05 March Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-shapes-minutes.html 18:06:25 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 05 March Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/05-shapes-minutes.html 18:06:43 +OpenLink_Software 18:06:51 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 18:06:51 +TallTed; got it 18:06:52 Zakim, mute me 18:06:52 TallTed should now be muted 18:06:58 Check doodle poll for next F2F 18:07:18 TOPIC: Tracking of Actions and Issues 18:07:36 RESOLVED: Close Action 16 18:07:46 Harold's actions 18:07:49 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirement/Concise_Language 18:08:09 proposed alternative to the requirement using semantic media wiki 18:08:20 doodle poll link -- http://doodle.com/4u8626tmapfxv6iw 18:08:52 [[page]] 18:09:07 {{:page}} 18:09:17 {{page}} 18:09:24 Templage:page 18:09:37 {{ is transclusion 18:10:31 {{page}} (without ':') is like load-and-eval 18:11:36 ... Semantic wiki templates -- includes description and votes 18:13:06 hsolbrig: includes RDF feed; facts about requirement 18:13:24 Arnaud: it seems a bit late to put everything into this format 18:14:02 hsolbrig: is there a value to convert it? fairly easy to do, except for page structure 1. do we need this for requirements? 2. are there other areas where we could use this? 18:14:26 q+ 18:14:26 Arnaud: editors working on working draft for wiki page 18:14:33 As far as I can tell, there are not going to be many future changes to the requirements 18:14:34 ack ericP 18:15:09 ericP: my guess is that the editors will get a stronger vote than the rest of us; as per Harold's statement, editors get a notice when major changes are made 18:15:24 Arnaud: how would we update the whole doc? 18:15:59 q+ 18:16:09 hsolbrig: we'd take page with requirements and cruft together perl/py or something and turn it into pages -> export into xml; estimates 4 hours of work 18:16:16 q- 18:16:22 ... i'm volunteering "conditionally" 18:16:24 q+ 18:16:28 ack me 18:17:11 zakim, mute me 18:17:11 cygri should now be muted 18:17:12 ack ArthurRyman 18:17:33 q+ 18:17:35 ArthurRyman: this is all very cool; there was discussion before that there was a dependency - what was that? 18:17:57 pfps: the problem before was that when we added new requirements the numbers all changed 18:18:09 ack pfps 18:18:22 ArthurRyman: original motivation no longer exists? 18:18:48 pfps: effect of number changes can be reduced by way change is done 18:19:06 ArthurRyman: inclined to let hsolbrig go ahead and do this 18:19:29 hsolbrig: will affect this transformation in 'low priority time' 18:19:54 Arnaud: hsolbrig's offer accepted 18:20:36 http://www.w3.org/2015/02/17-shapes-minutes.html#action02 18:21:00 Action 11: revise based on 'his ideas' - Story 17 (which is in limbo) 18:21:00 Error finding '11'. You can review and register nicknames at . 18:21:36 open action 12 - merge 17 and 18 (stories) - we removed 18 last week 18:21:54 action-11 18:21:54 action-11 -- Harold Solbrig to Revise based on his ideas; we'll review and accept/or not -- due 2015-02-24 -- OPEN 18:21:54 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/11 18:21:59 action-12 18:21:59 action-12 -- Harold Solbrig to Merge 17 and 18 -- due 2015-02-24 -- OPEN 18:21:59 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/12 18:22:46 q+ 18:22:52 ack pfps 18:22:52 Arnaud: inclined to close these two 18:23:15 pfps: hsolbrig was going to try to rescue story 17 - if not, it should be removed 18:23:45 hsolbrig: will look at over the next few days; if no rescue, goes away Arnaud: let's keep action-11 and close action-12 then 18:24:09 RESOLVED: close action-12 18:24:53 TOPIC: Primer 18:25:42 Arnaud: created by hknublau, edit by ericP ; work has been done on spec. are we close to publishing primer? 18:26:10 ... discuss: what will it take to publish as first public working draft? with related disclaimers 18:26:44 http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/ 18:26:48 ericP: status of the draft: good enough to go to the world. completed tasks from f2f 18:27:11 q+ 18:27:32 ... issue of templates: no classes templates addresses objections from Jose, and removed templates 18:27:45 ack cygri 18:27:47 Arnaud: there is a requirement for atemplate mechanism 18:28:31 cygri: clarify - what happens after the 1st public w draft? do revisions just follow wg decisions? or are there style edits? 18:28:45 ericP: no plan to make changes other than wg decisions 18:29:14 q+ 18:29:23 cygri: i'm uncomfortable about overlap in the two documents (primer and spec) 18:29:51 ... and editors have different opinions on some issues; we may be chasing down inconsistencies between the documents 18:29:55 zakim, mute me 18:29:55 cygri should now be muted 18:30:17 Arnaud, the primer usually looks very different from this 18:30:22 Arnaud: that's a common situation in most working groups - both a primer and spec that need to be kept in sync 18:30:35 ... primer is usually an informative doc 18:30:48 ack pfps 18:30:52 ... the spec is definitive 18:31:34 pfps: i share richard's concerns. in my experience, primers tend to be generated later; i thought that the group thought we should do a spec first, leave the primer for later 18:31:40 +1 18:31:42 +1 primer should usually be written *from* the spec, not in parallel nor before 18:31:59 +1 18:32:23 +0 18:32:31 Arnaud: seems to be a feeling that spec should be done first, do not publish primer until later 18:32:36 I think that we should be trying to get a FPWD of the UCR document out. 18:32:36 +0 18:32:54 +1 to pfps, get UC&R out of the door ASAP 18:33:20 I'm also concerned that the primer and the spec diverge so significantly. 18:33:24 +q 18:33:27 + 18:33:31 q+ 18:33:34 ack Labra 18:33:41 q- 18:34:19 Labra: primer is an opportunity to see what are the common functions in the language; 18:34:27 My view is that getting a primer out early is a good way of deluding ourselves that there is agreement. 18:34:43 ack ArthurRyman 18:34:45 ... do not delay it too much 18:35:14 ArthurRyman: the primer still reads too much like a spec; this one has tables of definitions 18:36:25 +q topic: UCR document 18:36:26 Arnaud: first doc should have been published in December 18:36:35 I think that the UCR document is ready for FPWD as it stands. 18:36:36 ack SimonSteyskal 18:37:24 SimonSteyskal: we can have a publishable by next Thursday as long as editors can update the document in the future 18:37:29 The whole idea of WDs is that they are changed later. This is especially true for FPWDs. 18:37:55 ... remove 'to do done' refs and link to requirements 18:38:03 q+ 18:38:11 The bar for FPWD is "acceptable", and here the enemy of "acceptable" is "good". 18:38:38 Arnaud: drafts always could be edited 18:38:49 ack cygri 18:38:49 ack me 18:39:09 cygri: is there a date for proposed new stories should be finished and added? 18:39:15 New stories and requirements can be added after FPWD. 18:39:46 Arnaud: will look at on a case by case basis 18:40:00 zakim, mute me 18:40:00 cygri should now be muted 18:40:27 topic: Requirements 18:40:44 PROPOSED: Approve requirements 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.3 18:40:52 q+ 18:41:02 ack pfps 18:41:11 2.12.1-.3 18:41:52 pfps: approval of requirements problem: not clear what all of the requirements mean, so need to be able to open them later on 18:42:21 Arnaud: yes, we should approve, but they can be clarified later 18:42:41 q+ to say that it would be more clear if we understood what was in the core (profile) 18:42:56 ... also, does approval of requirement mean has to be in main spec? we can define as a group 18:43:02 ack ericP 18:43:02 ericP, you wanted to say that it would be more clear if we understood what was in the core (profile) 18:43:36 That said, I'm happy with the proposal 18:43:43 ... on the table 18:43:45 ericP: wondering if it would be more productive if we knew whether requirements were in the core? 18:44:06 Arnaud: we can't go back to decide which ones are core; maybe someone can take a crack at this later 18:44:30 ... asume that when we approve a requirement we mean we will try to address it in some way, yet to be determined 18:44:48 +1 18:44:51 +1 18:44:52 +1 18:44:53 q+ 18:45:00 ack ArthurRyman 18:45:02 +1 18:45:09 +0 18:45:14 ArthurRyman: unclear what global selection means 18:45:39 ... relates to what a shape is before 'global' makes sense 18:46:19 pfps: the spec describes this 18:46:49 I think this is exactly the same as the “global constraints” requirement. 18:47:09 ... global constraints are sparql queries that are run across the entire graph (tho' not necessarily sparql) 18:47:17 ... shape is evaluated on every node of the graph 18:47:31 ArthurRyman: constraint applies to entire graph 18:47:40 q+ 18:47:49 ack hknublau 18:48:18 hknublau: hard to distinguish this from global constraint requirement that we have elsewhere 18:48:49 there's nothing wrong with having a redundant requirement.... which sounds like the concern 18:48:51 ... we can skip global selection, since redundant 18:49:04 it helps with clarity of understanding/explanation 18:49:29 Zakim, unmute me 18:49:29 TallTed should no longer be muted 18:49:33 ericP: is a selection of the whole graph 18:49:52 ArthurRyman: don't like how global selection is worded 18:50:18 TallTed: change to "select by graph" 18:50:21 Rename “Global selection” to “Select whole graph”? 18:50:33 Zakim, mute me 18:50:33 TallTed should now be muted 18:50:47 +1 with or without renaming :-) 18:50:49 +1 for Select whole graph 18:51:48 PROPOSAL: Approve requirements 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.3, with 2.12.1 renamed "Select whole graph" 18:51:57 +1 18:51:58 +1 18:51:59 +1 18:51:59 +1 18:52:00 +1 18:52:01 +1 18:52:01 +1 18:52:02 +1 18:52:06 +0 18:52:17 +1 18:52:17 RESOLVED: Approve requirements 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.3, with 2.12.1 renamed "Select whole graph" 18:52:20 I will rename it now. 18:53:09 PROPOSED: Approve requirements 2.5.9.1, 2.5.9.2, 2.5.9.3 18:54:30 ericP: objection was because this shouldn't be core 18:54:35 q+ 18:54:55 ack pfps 18:55:32 pfps: clarifying hknublau's clarification... 2.5.9 has to be part of high level language 18:55:43 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Datatype_Property_Facets 18:55:54 +q 18:56:16 ack Labra 18:56:25 Labra: I agree with this not being part of core language 18:56:36 ... but if we aren't specifying core, then this is ok 18:57:00 Arnaud: not everyone agrees on what is 'high level' or 'core' 18:57:12 q+ 18:57:16 ... some high level could be extensions 18:57:44 ... we can split the spec into pieces, but every piece hurts iinteroperability 18:57:49 We can have SHACL-LABRA, SHACL-ERICP, SHACL-CYGRI, … 18:57:55 ... hard on users 18:57:57 ack ArthurRyman 18:58:19 q+ 18:58:36 PROPOSED: Approve requirements 2.5.9.1, 2.5.9.2, 2.5.9.3, without implying how/where it is addressed 18:58:36 +1 18:58:37 ArthurRyman: can we defer core to later? first identify requirements, discuss core when we get further toward implementation 18:58:52 +1 18:58:55 +1 18:58:55 q- 18:58:55 +1 18:58:58 +1 18:59:05 +1 18:59:06 +1 - someone should put in a breadcrumb in the requirements to this effect 18:59:12 Profiles are already approved, so I don’t see the issue here. 18:59:13 +1 18:59:14 +1 18:59:16 +1 18:59:19 +1 18:59:27 ack me 19:00:06 zakim, mute me 19:00:06 cygri should now be muted 19:00:07 +1 (although i'm ambivalent on RE and String length --- it format vs. semantics) 19:00:17 RESOLVED: Approve requirements 2.5.9.1, 2.5.9.2, 2.5.9.3, without implying how/where it is addressed 19:01:43 ... other requirements will be carried forward 19:01:56 TOPIC: SHACL spec 19:02:36 Arnaud: disagreement on the role of sparql; from required to optional to ?? 19:03:29 ... only pfps is voting for sparql only 19:03:43 ... other questions seem to have to do with methodology rather than end product 19:04:14 I was not initially in favour of using SPARQL, it is just that it seems to me that SPARQL is the only technology that covers enough of the requirements. 19:04:18 ... hknublau starts from sparql as bottom-up approach, but we could also accommodate other things 19:04:35 ... others say sparql is an implementation detail 19:05:08 ... others say: we should have top-down, from abstract definition, high-level declarative language for constraints, then define extensions 19:05:30 A high-level vocabulary is not adequate by itself - there needs to be some way of saying what this vocabulary means. 19:05:39 ... these are two approaches, the end product could be the same, but it's how we get there 19:06:07 q+ 19:06:11 +q 19:06:34 q+ 19:07:13 ack hsolbrig 19:07:38 hsolbrig: the bottom-up approach bothers me because we're saying that we have language that does what we need 19:08:05 q+ 19:08:10 ... so we will develop a syntactic sugar on top of it; but i'm not looking for a high-level sparql; 19:08:14 ack Labra 19:08:17 ... i have an interest in starting with what we want to do 19:08:48 Labra: i agree with Arnaud 's description of situation; we should focus on high level language that we need 19:09:19 ... i have not problem with there being an implementation that uses sparql 19:09:38 ... i don't know how to develop tests because we have no high level language definition 19:10:08 ... i prefer a high-level declarative language 19:10:11 ack ArthurRyman 19:10:15 Jose, the high-level language already exists, no? 19:10:40 ArthurRyman: We do want to build on w3c specs that work here 19:10:43 I already implemented some test cases against that. 19:11:11 ... however, there are areas that we want to support that go beyond simple sparql - may require a series of sparql queries 19:11:14 hknublau: where is it in the spec? 19:11:23 ... don't limit to what a single sparql query can do 19:11:39 sh:minCount etc. 19:12:16 ack pfps 19:12:16 Arnaud: ?? protocol uses sparql to define semantics 19:12:27 Graph Store Protocol 19:12:43 pfps: i'm sympathetic with the top-down approach, but the only bottom I see is sparql 19:13:02 ... could someone come up with an alternative to sparql? 19:13:09 I use RDFLIB 19:13:20 pfps, didn't you come up with a formal definition? 19:13:38 +q 19:13:39 Arnaud: if we have a formal definition then people could do various implementations 19:13:55 Are we talking specify in SPARQL or implment in SPARQL 19:14:01 (I use RDFLIB to implement) 19:14:02 ack Labra 19:14:35 Labra: for formal definition need first main constructs 19:14:47 Arnaud: straw polls 19:15:14 STRAWPOLL: SHACL shall define a set of higher-level language constructs that addresses the most common use cases without requiring SPARQL support 19:15:18 I had a partial semantic definition. I like it, but it can't do quite a few of the requirements that the working group has approved or are under consideration, at least without major changes 19:15:32 +1 19:15:32 +1 19:15:34 ?? 19:15:35 +1 19:15:36 +1 19:15:37 +1 19:15:38 +1 19:15:40 +1 19:15:53 +1 19:16:48 pfps: is this all of sparql, or part of sparql, or equivalent of sparql? 19:16:48 q+ 19:16:48 +1 19:17:11 +0 because I don't know that the high-level language is going to look like 19:17:25 Arnaud: question is: what do we mean by sparql support? 19:17:31 I'm happy with a non-SPARQL syntax that doesn't cover all of SPARQL 19:17:38 ack ArthurRyman 19:18:08 The question here is how the high-level language gets defined 19:18:10 STRAWPOLL: SHACL shall include a SPARQL based extension mechanism for addressing more complex cases 19:18:11 ArthurRyman: do I need a sparql engine? if part of high level lang is not: take a sparql query and... 19:18:27 +1 19:18:27 +1 19:18:31 +1 19:18:32 +0 19:18:35 +1 19:18:37 +1 19:18:38 +1 19:18:44 -1 - if someone comes up with a different technology for SHACL then by all means let's dump SPARQL 19:18:50 SPARQL should be a supported extension mechanism 19:19:04 Javascript is also an interesting extension language 19:19:11 +1 (assuming it means: a mechanism for extending the high-level language) 19:19:26 pfps: if someone came up with a new language we are all happy with, i'd say: let's dump sparql because it is too big and too complex 19:19:27 +1 19:20:32 ericP: we have functionality that we need to describe... e.g. minOccur, a new executive model would be "use xpath" 19:20:40 pfps: or javascript 19:20:52 ericP: what is it was written in algebraic form? 19:21:38 -1 19:22:11 pfps: worried that sparql is required, even if new solution comes later 19:22:14 there are possible alternatives, e.g. represent triples as RDF/XML and use XQuery - but that's not very attractive 19:22:26 -0 as SPARQL is the only path I see going forward 19:22:57 hsolbrig: makes sense to specify what needs to be done using sparql; but an extension mechanism could mean that shacl does everything that sparql does and more 19:23:03 +q 19:23:08 ... you could implement with a subset of sparql 19:23:23 ... non-mandatory extension mechansim would be ok 19:23:40 but then where are the boundaries? SPARQL exists, and appears to be a reasonable choice for constraints, so we should use it 19:23:50 Arnaud: point is whether extension is mandatory 19:24:26 ... similar to HTML - although allows other scripting, etc., everyone uses javascript. spec does not require these extensions 19:24:38 q+ 19:25:00 pfps, there are lots of graph APIs for e.g. Jena, Sesame, Virtuoso, etc, which provide useful functionality for extensions 19:25:12 ack hknublau 19:25:14 ??: is it shall? does it require sparql? 19:25:51 eric: but do any of work well for SHACL? 19:26:02 hknublau: all of the features in the requirements are backed by user stories; the subset will converge with sparql anyway 19:26:07 ack ArthurRyman 19:26:36 ArthurRyman: could hsolbrig elaborate by writing user story for something sparql cannot do? functionality, performance, scaling? 19:26:55 pfps, i implemented shex with the ubiquitous triplesMatching function (you find that in most APIs) 19:27:14 hsolbrig: No, not what I said; i anticipate that nearly everything in shacl can be implemented in sparql 19:27:41 ... but there is a lot that you can do in sparql that i don't need in shacl; so i'm looking for a simplified view 19:27:44 pfps, there's still a lot of logic in the code that works with the results of triplesMatching, but mapping that logic to SPARQL is pretty complex and opaque 19:28:11 +q 19:28:12 ... i use RDFLIB, which has worked well; 19:28:25 STRAWPOLL: a) The main specification shall include everything and a set of profiles shall define appropriate subsets b) The main specification shall include the higher-level language constructs only and the rest shall be defined in add-ons (answer with a:x b:y) 19:28:49 eric: so you are programming in some language that uses a very low-level primitives 19:28:52 a:+1 b:+0 19:28:53 a: +1 b: -1 19:29:10 a:+1 b:-1 19:29:14 a: +1 b: -1 19:29:16 a:-1 b:+1 19:29:16 a: +1 b:-1 19:29:18 a: -1 b: +1 19:29:18 a: +0 b: +1 19:29:19 a: +1 b: -1 19:29:22 a: -1, b: +1 19:30:14 We should have a look at the charter again… 19:30:24 -TallTed 19:30:26 -SimonSteyskal 19:30:26 -pfps 19:30:28 -arthurryman 19:30:29 -hknublau 19:30:29 -cygri 19:30:30 -Arnaud 19:30:30