17:59:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:59:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/26-shapes-irc
17:59:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:59:31 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:59:33 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:59:33 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
17:59:34 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
17:59:34 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:59:34 <trackbot> Date: 26 March 2015
18:00:16 <Arnaud1> zakim, this is shapes
18:00:17 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud1; that matches DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM
18:00:29 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:00:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P4, pfps, Arnaud
18:00:45 <SimonSteyskal> zakim, ??P4 is me
18:00:45 <Zakim> +SimonSteyskal; got it
18:00:45 <cygri> cygri has joined #shapes
18:00:51 <Zakim> +??P6
18:00:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:00:57 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P6 is me
18:00:58 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
18:01:02 <SimonSteyskal> scribe: SimonSteyskal
<SimonSteyskal> chair: Arnaud
<SimonSteyskal> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.03.26
18:01:17 <Labra> Zakim, IPcaller is labra
18:01:17 <Zakim> +labra; got it
18:01:24 <pfps> zakim, who is talking?
18:01:25 <michel> michel has joined #shapes
18:01:25 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:01:35 <Zakim> pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: BartvanLeeuwen (21%), labra (62%)
18:01:42 <Labra> I was
18:01:43 <Zakim> +kcoyle
18:02:06 <Zakim> +michel
18:02:25 <Zakim> +ericP
18:03:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:03:21 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
18:03:29 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
18:03:29 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
18:03:30 <Zakim> +ArthurRyman
18:03:31 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:03:31 <hknublau> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:03:31 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:03:31 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
18:03:42 <cygri> zakim, code?
18:03:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 742737 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), cygri
18:03:55 <Zakim> +??P15
18:03:58 <cygri> zakim, ??P15 is me
18:03:58 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
18:04:05 <cygri> zakim, mute me
18:04:05 <Zakim> cygri should now be muted
18:04:25 <Zakim> +Dimitris
18:04:38 <SimonSteyskal> TOPIC: Minutes of last meeting
18:04:39 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 19 March Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/19-shapes-minutes.html
18:04:48 <pfps> The minutes looked OK.
18:05:00 <ArthurRyman> ArthurRyman has joined #shapes
18:05:15 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:05:20 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 19 March Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/19-shapes-minutes.html
18:05:44 <SimonSteyskal> TOPIC: F2F3
18:06:28 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: im unable to confirm, that we can host it at the IBM lab in toronto
18:06:35 <pfps> Which week is the preferred one?
18:07:02 <SimonSteyskal> pfps: we still have the possibility of a room in waterloo
18:07:44 <SimonSteyskal> TOPIC: Tracking of Actions and Issues
18:08:11 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: we are in pretty good shape regarding actions
18:08:45 <SimonSteyskal> ... maybe we should trying to be more formal in what issues are being addressed
18:09:08 <SimonSteyskal> TOPIC: UCR
18:09:29 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: we agreed last week to publish it
18:10:03 <SimonSteyskal> ... publishing is still pending
18:10:15 <SimonSteyskal> ... hopefully we can publish it next week
18:11:03 <SimonSteyskal> ... there are other new user stories that have been proposed, so we may take some time to discuss them now
<SimonSteyskal> TOPIC: User Stories
18:12:14 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: approve S39 Arbitrary Cardinality https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S39_Arbitrary_Cardinality
18:12:15 <SimonSteyskal> ericP: a model like in resource shapes is too limited
18:12:17 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:12:19 <ericP> +1
18:12:23 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:12:27 <kcoyle> +1
18:12:27 <cygri> +1
18:12:31 <hknublau> +1
18:12:32 <Dimitris> +1
18:12:42 <TallTed> +1
18:12:45 <pfps> +1
18:12:50 <Labra> +1
18:12:55 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: approve S39 Arbitrary Cardinality https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S39_Arbitrary_Cardinality
18:13:29 <Arnaud> S40 Describing Inline Content versus References https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S40_Describing_Inline_Content_versus_References
18:14:43 <pfps> q+ to ask whether this would give rise to a requirement that there be a SHACL construct that goes out and grabs some external information?
18:15:06 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:15:06 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask whether this would give rise to a requirement that there be a SHACL construct that goes out and grabs some external information?
18:15:39 <cygri> q+
18:15:53 <cygri> ack me
18:15:54 <Arnaud> ack cygri
18:16:12 <SimonSteyskal> ArthurRyman: it tries to describe what's the content of the graph
18:17:32 <SimonSteyskal> cygri: it's really just informative in a sense that it describes that something should link to a resource of a particular shape but doesn't really enforce it
18:17:45 <pfps> I'm still unsure as to just what is supposed to be going on.  I really don't see any connection to SHACL here.
18:18:35 <SimonSteyskal> ArthurRyman: it would be validateable by checking if unknown content is returned
18:18:40 <ericP> +1 to cygri's "human-readable" distinction
18:18:49 <ericP> perhaps "non-semantic"
18:20:24 <kcoyle> q+
18:20:29 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:21:02 <pfps> If this is non-constraint construct then it needs to be connected to one of the other purposes of SHACL.
18:21:10 <ArthurRyman> q+
18:21:15 <SimonSteyskal> kcoyle: are we rejecting this kind of requirements here?
18:21:15 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:21:16 <SimonSteyskal> ArthurRyman:
18:21:20 <cygri> zakim, mute me
18:21:20 <Zakim> cygri should now be muted
18:22:21 <cygri> pfps, I think it speaks to this point in the charter: “Developers of data-providing systems can read the shape definitions (and possibly related RDF Vocabulary definitions) to learn what they need to provide”
18:22:57 <pfps> cygri, yes, but what is supposed to be provided?
18:23:04 <Arnaud> S41: Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S41:_Validating_schema.org_instances_against_model_and_metamodel
18:23:12 <cygri> ack me
18:24:02 <SimonSteyskal> cygri: this story is about the model level of schema.org
18:24:44 <SimonSteyskal> ... schema.org uses some constructs that are not specified
18:25:09 <pfps> Does anyone know what the semantics of schema.org is?
18:25:46 <ArthurRyman> +q
18:25:50 <SimonSteyskal> ... there are a few issues like not using datatypes in a way defined by rdfs, or not using rdfs domain/range but domainincludes/rangeincludes
18:25:53 <ericP> q+ to ask what :p1 schema:rangeIncludes :Class1 , :Class2 . means if you see :p1 [ a :Class3 ]
18:26:02 <kcoyle> peter: they are whatever you want them to be, afaik
18:26:14 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:26:26 <pfps> karen:  that's my feeling as well
18:27:09 <pfps> However, it is then hard to figure out just that SHACL constructs are needed for schema.org validation
18:27:10 <ericP> ArthurRyman: OSLC valueClass was intended to capture a union
18:27:18 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:27:18 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask what :p1 schema:rangeIncludes :Class1 , :Class2 . means if you see :p1 [ a :Class3 ]
18:28:04 <pfps> eric: there is no invalid schema.org
18:28:19 <SimonSteyskal> ericP: i was wondering how to violate a rangeincludes
18:28:33 <SimonSteyskal> cygri: schema.org has no formal semantics
18:29:38 <pfps> This is something like the kind of validation that Wikidata is starting to do.
18:30:08 <SimonSteyskal> ... but someone might want to add some custom constraints, i.e. wants to validate whether certain parts conform to those constraints
18:30:19 <pfps> q+
18:30:24 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:31:40 <SimonSteyskal> pfps: although domain/rangeincludes might be easy to check, the datatypes constraint might be not
18:33:34 <SimonSteyskal> ... so you might want to use regexp to check those datatypes constraints
18:33:55 <ArthurRyman> q+
18:33:55 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve S41: Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S41:_Validating_schema.org_instances_against_model_and_metamodel
18:33:57 <pfps> if this is regular expressions, then I'm fine with ti
18:34:02 <pfps> +0.9
18:34:04 <michel> +1
18:34:09 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:34:22 <kcoyle> +1
18:34:25 <Dimitris> +1
18:34:27 <SimonSteyskal> ArthurRyman: this user story line sup with the facets requirements
18:34:30 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:34:31 <cygri> +1
18:34:35 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:34:37 <ericP> +1
18:34:39 <Labra> +1
18:34:39 <pfps> this may or may not line up with facets - it also may require some weird facets to get right
18:34:52 <TallTed> +1
18:35:04 <pfps> s/S40/S41?
18:35:06 <TallTed> -17!
18:35:16 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve S41: Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S41:_Validating_schema.org_instances_against_model_and_metamodel
18:35:21 <TallTed> s/-17!/ /
<SimonSteyskal> TOPIC: Requirements
18:35:45 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: lets switch to requirements
18:36:05 <SimonSteyskal> ... 5 requirements left that are under consideration
18:36:35 <cygri> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Evaluating_Constraints_for_a_Single_Node_Only
18:36:39 <Arnaud> 2.11.8 Evaluating Constraints for a Single Node Only https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Evaluating_Constraints_for_a_Single_Node_Only
18:37:27 <pfps> The new comment from RC (Richard?) indicates that this is a new language construct.  However, it seems to me that all that is needed is a different API  call, with no change to the language.
18:37:31 <TallTed> 2.11.8 seems very much the same as 2.12.3
18:37:33 <ArthurRyman> +q
18:37:43 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:37:58 <cygri> pfps, no, my comment doesn’t indicate that it’s a new language construct
18:38:18 <cygri> pfps, it says that the language must be designed in a way that a certain implementation behaviour must be possible
18:38:51 <SimonSteyskal> hknublau: it was mostly about the operations level; you can start the validation given a particular node
18:38:53 <pfps> q+
18:38:58 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:39:08 <ArthurRyman> sounds like this is the same as "focus" or "root" node concept
18:39:10 <SimonSteyskal> ... so if you have a form, you can just check this instance
18:39:46 <ericP> q+ to ask if validation is permitted to reach subshapes
18:39:48 <SimonSteyskal> pfps: you can implement this by keeping track changes on the graph and only check those nodes that have changed
18:40:27 <michel> seems like it talks to applying the shape against a subject URI?
18:40:30 <kcoyle> q+
18:40:38 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:40:38 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if validation is permitted to reach subshapes
18:41:03 <SimonSteyskal> hknublau: should actually be a easy to check requirement
18:41:24 <cygri> scribe, last comment was me, not hknublau
18:41:42 <SimonSteyskal> s/hknublau/cygri
18:41:42 <Arnaud> s/hknublau:/cygri:/
18:41:56 <hknublau> +q
18:42:02 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:42:21 <SimonSteyskal> hknublau: it would go into the valueshape
18:42:31 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:43:01 <hknublau> +q
18:43:21 <SimonSteyskal> kcoyle: my question is, how far do you follow the graph? have we defined the boundaries?
18:43:45 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:43:54 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: it's undecided yet
18:46:04 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve 2.11.8 Evaluating Constraints for a Single Node Only https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Evaluating_Constraints_for_a_Single_Node_Only
18:46:06 <hknublau> +1
18:46:12 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:46:16 <TallTed> +1
18:46:16 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:46:24 <Dimitris> +1
18:46:26 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:46:36 <Labra> +1
18:46:43 <michel> +1
18:46:49 <cygri> +0.5 … almost too light a requirement to be worth spelling out
18:46:56 <kcoyle> +1
18:47:08 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve 2.11.8 Evaluating Constraints for a Single Node Only https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Evaluating_Constraints_for_a_Single_Node_Only
18:47:11 <ericP> +1
18:47:46 <Arnaud> 2.8 Specialization of Shapes https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Specialization_of_Shapes
18:47:49 <Zakim> -ArthurRyman
18:48:17 <pfps> My objection has been resolved.  I'll change its status.
18:49:16 <SimonSteyskal> ericP: most schema languages add stuff and allow you to remove stuff as well
18:49:29 <Zakim> +ArthurRyman
18:49:34 <pfps> The current description forbids modification and replacement, so most of what Eric is saying is not germane to this requirements.
18:50:04 <SimonSteyskal> Labra: i remove my objection
18:50:10 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve 2.8 Specialization of Shapes https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Specialization_of_Shapes
18:50:12 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:50:12 <hknublau> +1
18:50:15 <Labra> +1
18:50:17 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:50:18 <TallTed> +1
18:50:19 <cygri> +1
18:50:20 <Dimitris> +1
18:50:22 <michel> +1
18:50:28 <kcoyle> +1
18:50:32 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:50:33 <ericP> +1
18:50:35 <pfps> 0
18:50:44 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve 2.8 Specialization of Shapes https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Specialization_of_Shapes
18:51:04 <pfps> I'm hoping that we are reading requirements as "we can do this" as opposed to "we can do this in exactly this way"
18:51:35 <SimonSteyskal> TOPIC: SHACL Specification
18:51:35 <hknublau> @pfps yes a follow up question would be sh:extends vs rdfs:subClassOf
18:52:03 <pfps> or even just attaching to a subclass
18:52:10 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: we have made a resolution: Define semantics using SPARQL as much as possible
18:52:30 <hknublau> @pfps that’s my preference
18:52:39 <SimonSteyskal> ... but there is some room for interpretation
18:53:48 <SimonSteyskal> ... but we can use other options if applicable or preferred
18:54:07 <SimonSteyskal> ... (that's my view on this)
18:58:20 <SimonSteyskal> ... whether if conceptually we have 2 documents (1 high level description, 1 extensions) which one would be referencing the other?
18:58:24 <hknublau> +q
18:58:28 <ArthurRyman> q+
18:58:29 <pfps> q+
18:58:30 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:59:50 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:00:10 <SimonSteyskal> ArthurRyman: the extension mechanism should refer to the high level description
19:00:59 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:02:39 <ericP> q+ to say that getting that marriage right will enable other extensions
19:03:32 <SimonSteyskal> pfps: if the high level stuff works in one way and the extensions in the other way thats probably not going to work
19:04:10 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:04:28 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:04:28 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that getting that marriage right will enable other extensions
19:05:30 <cygri> q+
19:05:37 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:06:05 <pfps> I'm not saying that the ability to express constraints depends on SPARQL at all.
19:06:44 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:07:18 <pfps> I was saying that designing a small part of a language independent of designing the entire language risks ending up with a broken language.
19:07:31 <michel> q+
19:07:52 <ArthurRyman> @pfps yes it's a risk, but it's under our control
19:08:11 <pfps> +1 to richard
19:08:24 <SimonSteyskal> cygri: i dont see any proposals on how to use javascript as a substitution of SPARQL
19:09:06 <Labra> +q
19:09:37 <kcoyle> q+
19:10:24 <SimonSteyskal> cygri: i dont see the urge of doing that split, since I havent seen any proposals on replacements for sparql (other extension mechanisms)
19:11:01 <Arnaud> ack michel
19:11:09 <pfps> I think that calling it an extension mechanism for a SPARQL is a bad idea.  The extension mechanism is really a way of extending the high-level language.
19:11:15 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: i think it's more of a question of if we should let the door open or not
19:11:17 <pfps> ... not extending SHACL.
19:11:54 <hknublau> @pfps yes I objected to the term “extension mechanism” before too
19:11:57 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:12:04 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:12:07 <SimonSteyskal> michel: it makes sense to me to have the sparql implementation in its own document
19:12:17 <ericP> note that the ShExDemo has a few extensions, including one called "js" which tests stuff beyond ShEx's expressivity
19:12:57 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:13:12 <cygri> ericP, is there documentation how the extension mechanism works?
19:13:37 <Labra> labra: what I defend is that the extension mechanism supports "any" external language processor...but SPARQL there should be optional, not mandatory
19:14:09 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page#Proposals
19:14:31 <hknublau> @labra I could live with that. Some people may have constraints in their local system that use custom JavaScript.
19:14:38 <Labra> so could call external language processors in SPARQL, javascript, or whatever...but there could be SHACL implementations that don't support extenal calls to SPARQL
19:14:54 <pfps> I don't think that decisions can be made without a number of proposals, so I see the multiplicity as a good thing.
19:14:58 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: we dont have made any decisions yet; so we have a set of proposals that are listed on this wiki page
19:16:19 <SimonSteyskal> ... we additionally have shex, we have peter's proposal which is similar to SPIN, ...
19:16:46 <hknublau> @labra yes this (some engines would not support SPRQL) is the intention of my proposal.
19:16:49 <SimonSteyskal> ... practically we could just have a vote and decide which road to follow
19:17:39 <SimonSteyskal> kcoyle: my question is, if we decide there is one draft.. how can we collaborate on that?
19:18:25 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: once we have a draft, the editors have to make changes according to issues others raise against the document
19:19:15 <SimonSteyskal> ... so basically they implement the resolutions the WG makes
19:19:37 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:20:03 <cygri> ericP, I take it there’s no documentation for the js extension in the ShExDemo?
19:20:09 <SimonSteyskal> ArthurRyman: i dont think that splitting the document has something to do with the role of SPARQL
19:20:28 <SimonSteyskal> ... we should be able to manage 2 documents as long as we agree on the content
19:20:39 <pfps> It's not the split itself that I found problematic, but the description of the split-off document.
19:20:47 <hknublau> +q
19:22:16 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: there seems to be a preference on keeping everything in one document
19:22:39 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:22:41 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:23:11 <pfps> If we don't agree to a general approach then how can we vote for a particular part of SHACL?   Consider, for example, recursive shapes - they may appear to be fine in a very small part of SHACL but they are extremely problematic for SHACL as a whole.
19:24:01 <pfps> Along the lines of Holger's comment  - let's put together a document that says SHACL includes SPARQL - that would be easy to write, would cover a large part of the WG output, and be a win all around!
19:24:26 <SimonSteyskal> hknublau: i dont agree with the assumption that we can publish faster if we split the document because the core part might be less controversial as the extension (i.e. sparql)
19:25:10 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:26:01 <pfps> Sure, come up with a document that defines OSLC shapes so that people can implement it and put it forward as a proposal
19:28:02 <ArthurRyman> @pfps I read your comment as asking for a more precise spec of OSLC Resource Shapes since there are already informal descriptions which have led to some implementations
19:28:21 <pfps> q+
19:28:29 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: maybe we should agree on a schedule, i.e. one or two weeks from now we have a contest and pick the "best" proposal
19:28:41 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:29:29 <ericP> cygri, (sorry, had eyes elsewhere) -- no docs at all. you can play with http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/FancyShExDemo?schemaURL=test/Issue-js-test-date-triple.shex&dataURL=test/Issue-fail-date.ttl&colorize=true and write some for me
19:29:49 <SimonSteyskal> pfps: somehow someone has to come up with a complete proposal; if a popular proposal has fundamental issues this isnt the right way to go
19:30:03 <ericP> q+
19:30:12 <ericP> q+ to say that we could work on test cases
19:31:20 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:31:20 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that we could work on test cases
19:32:17 <SimonSteyskal> ericP: we could solve this issue by defining a number of test cases which SHACL should be able to solve
19:33:14 <Labra> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/
19:33:30 <pfps> Test cases can be illuminating, but only in how they illustrate the issues that are problematic.
19:33:36 <Labra> q+ just to say that I will try to put the test cases there
19:33:58 <SimonSteyskal> Arnaud: i suggest people to raise issues in the tracker
19:33:59 <pfps> I was kind of hoping that some one besides me would raise an issue :-)
19:34:01 <hknublau> For test cases we first need a draft for a syntax
19:34:11 <SimonSteyskal> ... they can even be in terms of test cases
19:34:12 <Labra> right
19:34:20 <hknublau> Differences like union/or don’t help at this stage.
19:34:33 <Zakim> -michel
19:34:35 <Dimitris> I agree with Holger, we need to settle on the core vocabulary at least
19:34:35 <Zakim> -pfps
19:34:36 <Zakim> -kcoyle
19:34:37 <Zakim> -SimonSteyskal
19:34:38 <Zakim> -hknublau
19:34:38 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
19:34:40 <Zakim> -cygri
19:34:40 <Zakim> -ArthurRyman
19:34:41 <Zakim> -labra
19:34:41 <Zakim> -Arnaud
19:34:42 <Zakim> -Dimitris
19:34:43 <Zakim> -ericP
19:34:52 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:34:52 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:34:52 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pfps, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, BartvanLeeuwen, labra, kcoyle, michel, ericP, TallTed, ArthurRyman, hknublau, cygri, Dimitris
19:35:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:35:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/26-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:35:01 <Zakim> -TallTed
19:35:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:35:01 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
19:35:02 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended
19:35:02 <Zakim> Attendees were pfps, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, BartvanLeeuwen, labra, kcoyle, michel, ericP, TallTed, ArthurRyman, hknublau, cygri, Dimitris