17:59:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:59:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/02-shapes-irc
17:59:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:59:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:59:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:59:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
17:59:14 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:59:14 <trackbot> Date: 02 April 2015
18:00:42 <Arnaud> zakim, this is shapes
18:00:42 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud; that matches DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM
18:00:48 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:00:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, pfps, +1.510.435.aaaa, Arnaud
18:00:51 <SimonSteyskal> zakim, ??P2 is me
18:00:52 <Zakim> +SimonSteyskal; got it
18:01:11 <Zakim> - +1.510.435.aaaa
18:01:23 <Zakim> +??P8
18:01:25 <Zakim> -??P8
18:01:26 <kcoyle> that was me, then i hit the wrong button. i'll be back
18:01:43 <Zakim> +??P4
18:02:07 <Zakim> + +1.510.435.aabb
18:02:09 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:02:14 <kcoyle> zakim, aabb is me
18:02:14 <Zakim> +kcoyle; got it
18:02:16 <Arnaud> zakim, ??P4 is ericP
18:02:16 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
18:02:48 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:02:49 <Zakim> +??P8
18:02:56 <Zakim> -??P8
18:03:13 <Zakim> +??P8
18:03:24 <Arnaud> zakim, IPcaller is labra
18:03:24 <Zakim> +labra; got it
18:03:47 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:04:04 <Zakim> -??P8
18:04:24 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:04:30 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
18:04:30 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:04:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see SimonSteyskal, pfps, Arnaud, ericP, kcoyle, labra, [IPcaller]
18:04:40 <hsolbrig> zakim, IPcaller is hsolbrig
18:04:41 <Zakim> + +30694579aacc
18:04:41 <Zakim> +hsolbrig; got it
18:04:52 <Dimitris> zakim, +30694579aacc is me
18:04:52 <Zakim> +Dimitris; got it
18:05:40 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:05:47 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:05:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see SimonSteyskal, pfps, Arnaud, ericP, kcoyle, labra, hsolbrig, Dimitris, [IPcaller]
18:06:03 <hknublau> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:06:03 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
18:06:03 <Arnaud> zakim, ipcaller is hknublau
18:06:04 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'ipcaller'
18:06:25 <SimonSteyskal> zakim, IPcaller is hknublau
18:06:25 <Zakim> sorry, SimonSteyskal, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
18:06:52 <Zakim> + +1.905.764.aadd
18:07:19 <Arnaud> zakim, aadd is arthurRyman
18:07:19 <Zakim> +arthurRyman; got it
18:07:29 <Arnaud> scribe: labra
18:07:32 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:07:39 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.04.02
18:07:39 <ArthurRyman> ArthurRyman has joined #shapes
18:07:51 <Labra> Topic: Admin
18:07:55 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 26 March Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/26-shapes-minutes.html
18:08:02 <pfps> minutes look fine
18:08:03 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:08:09 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 26 March Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/26-shapes-minutes.html
18:08:21 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
18:08:40 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
18:08:40 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
18:08:42 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:08:42 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:08:49 <Labra> pfps: would like a compilation of the resolutions
18:08:56 <Labra> to have them in one place
18:09:09 <Labra> ...to have all together
18:09:21 <Labra> ...to search for a resolution
18:09:54 <Labra> Arnaud: not committed to it...it should not be a lot of fork
18:10:01 <Labra> s/fork/work
18:10:26 <Labra> Arnaud: next conference next week
18:10:37 <Labra> ...about next f2f in Toronto
18:10:49 <Labra> ...asked Peter to host it in Waterloo
18:11:05 <Labra> ...venue is set at Waterloo
18:11:20 <Labra> ...there is a wiki page to indicate participation...
18:12:10 <Labra> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/F2F3
18:12:47 <Labra> Arnaud asks people to fill about their participation...
18:12:55 <Labra> Topic: Tracking of actions and issues
18:13:03 <Labra> no open actions...
18:14:01 <Labra> most of the issues are about the spec
18:14:09 <Labra> we can defer to later...
18:14:18 <Labra> Topic: User stories
18:14:42 <Labra> Editors have put together a draft ready for publication
18:15:03 <Labra> ...publication schedule is in two days
18:15:09 <Labra> tuesday probably
18:15:40 <Labra> EricP: Will try to have it published tuesday
18:16:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:16:13 <cygri> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:16:13 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
18:16:19 <cygri> zakim, mute me
18:16:19 <Zakim> cygri should now be muted
18:16:43 <kcoyle> no, nothing else
18:16:59 <Labra> Arnaud: proposed new stories
18:17:23 <Labra> ...s42
18:17:26 <pfps> q+
18:17:28 <cygri> ack me
18:17:48 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:17:59 <Arnaud> queue=
18:18:10 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S42:_Constraining_RDF_graphs_for_better_mapping_to_JSON
18:18:18 <Arnaud> S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON
18:18:19 <Labra> pfps: sees it ok...why not?
18:18:37 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON
18:18:40 <ericP> +1
18:18:41 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:18:41 <Labra> +1
18:18:42 <hknublau> +1
18:18:42 <cygri> +1
18:18:42 <TallTed> +1
18:18:44 <pfps> +1
18:18:45 <Dimitris> +1
18:18:56 <kcoyle> +1
18:18:56 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON
18:19:50 <Labra> subTopic: user story S40
18:20:00 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S40_Describing_Inline_Content_versus_References
<Labra> Arnaud: to be continued
18:20:19 <Labra> Topic: Requirements
18:20:34 <Arnaud> 2.10.2 Human-readable Violation Messages
18:20:47 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Human-readable_Violation_Messages
18:21:51 <Labra> EricP: Having a machine data structure is easy
18:22:18 <Labra> ...but trying to cover the possible errors
18:22:25 <Labra> it will be very complex
18:22:33 <Labra> to put that in a data structure
18:22:36 <pfps> q+
18:22:52 <Labra> EricP: if it is not in the core language then it isok
18:22:54 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:23:20 <Labra> Peter: we should approve requirements independent if they are in the core or not...
18:23:52 <Labra> Peter: something like the ability to include a string that can be filled with values...
18:24:07 <Labra> +q
18:24:41 <Labra> peter: is not sure if this feature should be part of SHACL at all
18:24:42 <ArthurRyman> +q
18:24:51 <Labra> he is happy to put it in a requirement...
18:25:01 <Labra> so someone can try to satisfy it
18:25:15 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:26:09 <hknublau> +q
18:26:15 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:26:29 <pfps> I agree that coming up with some data responses is much more important.
18:26:37 <Labra> labra: I think it will be very complex to generate human readable messages
18:26:57 <cygri> Jose presumes a solution, and then rejects this solution by saying it’s too complicated. This is not how you evaluate requirements.
18:27:01 <Labra> I don't understand what Arthur said
18:27:02 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:27:20 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #shapes
18:27:44 <Labra> @cygri, no, that's not what I said...I say that it is out of scope
18:28:01 <Labra> and too complex to try to do it in a right way
18:28:20 <Labra> I couldn't hear Holger...
18:28:28 <Labra> Holger, could you write it?
18:28:56 <hknublau> I was just saying that in our experience this is quite easy to implement using sh:message with template insertions.
18:29:23 <pfps> I'm also happy to make this a soft goal - It's not as if this is a vital part of SHACL
18:29:46 <Zakim> +??P7
18:29:54 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??P7 is me
18:29:54 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
18:30:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve  2.10.2 Human-readable Violation Messages
18:30:35 <hknublau> +1
18:30:36 <Labra> -1
18:30:37 <kcoyle> +1
18:30:40 <Dimitris> +1
18:30:43 <cygri> +1
18:30:44 <pfps> +0.5
18:30:47 <TallTed> +1
18:30:49 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:30:49 <Labra> -0.5
18:30:55 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:30:57 <ericP> 0
18:31:13 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve  2.10.2 Human-readable Violation Messages
18:32:05 <Labra> Arnaud: We can drop some requirements later
18:33:02 <Labra> subTopic: Other requirements
18:33:20 <Arnaud> 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes
18:33:25 <Labra> Peter: the trouble of closed shapes is trying to figure what is the requirement
18:33:27 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes
18:34:06 <Labra> EricP: some mechanism to determine which triples are not covered by the validation process
18:34:11 <ArthurRyman> q+
18:34:21 <Labra> Peter: it covers at least 4 different possibilities
18:34:34 <Labra> ...at least three different things
18:34:52 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:34:55 <Labra> ...two of them from the algebraic semantics and at least one that isn't intractable
18:35:24 <Labra> Arthur: my objection is not about the concept...
18:36:09 <Labra> ...he is not objecting the capability
18:36:46 <Labra> EricP: If there is some optional property and misspel it
18:38:31 <Labra> +q
18:38:48 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:38:54 <TallTed> +1 on that hand-waved user story.  also +1 on the requirement, as I understand it.
18:40:06 <TallTed> "all data that you give me must fit this shape.  you gave me %THIS% data that doesn't fit.  try again."
18:40:33 <cygri> The user story could perhaps be addressed with another requirements that would be simpler, e.g., by a flag in the operations, rather than by a language feature.
18:41:12 <Labra> Arnaud: lets move on
18:41:18 <Labra> topic: SHACL spec
18:41:57 <hsolbrig> Arnaud: you guys need to get a life.
18:42:02 <Labra> Arnaud: a couple of points that appear again and again
18:42:50 <pfps> q+
18:43:23 <Labra> Arnaud: discussion about having SHACL depend on SPARQL engine
18:43:34 <Labra> ...SHACL should be defined so it can be implemented in SPARQL
18:43:45 <Labra> it can constraint the expressivity of the language
18:44:00 <Labra> not everything can be implemented in SPARQL...recursion and things like that
18:44:11 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:45:01 <Labra> peter: wether the high-level language needs SPARQL for implementation
18:45:32 <Labra> Arnaud: it seems that there should be a mechanism to have a extension based on SPARQL
18:45:59 <Labra> peter: high-level language does not require SPARQL engine to be implemented
18:46:30 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Implementation of "SHACL core" shall not require SPARQL
18:46:39 <pfps> +1
18:46:39 <Labra> +q
18:46:52 <hsolbrig> Should it be possible to implement SHACL inefficiently with SPARQL?
18:46:57 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:47:20 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Implementation of "SHACL high level" shall not require SPARQL
18:47:25 <pfps> +1
18:47:28 <hsolbrig> +1
18:47:28 <ericP> +1
18:47:29 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:47:30 <Labra> +1
18:47:31 <kcoyle> +1
18:47:40 <TallTed> +0
18:47:44 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:47:58 <Labra> core could be seem as a profile
18:47:59 <cygri> +1
18:48:00 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
18:48:00 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
18:48:09 <Dimitris> +1
18:48:22 <ArthurRyman> see sections 2-6 (I think) of Holger's spec
18:48:26 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Implementation of "SHACL high level" shall not require SPARQL
18:49:21 <Labra> Arnaud: the other one, SHACL should not be limited to what can be implemented in SPARQl
18:49:33 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: "SHACL highlevel" shall not be limited to what can be implemented in SPARQL
18:49:39 <cygri> -1
18:49:42 <ericP> +1
18:49:43 <cygri> q+
18:49:44 <Labra> +1
18:49:48 <kcoyle> +1
18:49:50 <ArthurRyman> q+
18:49:51 <hknublau> -1
18:49:53 <pfps> q+
18:49:58 <ArthurRyman> -1
18:50:15 <Arnaud> ack cygri
18:50:56 <Labra> cygri: I am not sure that there is any requirements that can't be implemented in SPARQL
18:51:04 <pfps> It seems to me that closed shapes are at least hard to implement in SPARQL
18:51:22 <SimonSteyskal> -1
18:51:30 <Labra> if somebody brings a concrete that isn't implemented in SPARQL
18:51:43 <pfps> Recursive shapes also don't fit in SPARQL, but there aren't any viable proposals for recursive shapes
18:51:45 <hknublau> @pfps depends on how closed shapes are defined. Just checking for property existence is easy.
18:51:47 <Dimitris> -1
18:52:34 <Labra> +q
18:52:55 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:53:24 <Labra> Arthur: High-level language should be able to be implemented in SPARQL
18:53:56 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:54:18 <Labra> Arthur: Basic constraints should be capable of implementation in SPARQL. However, the overall process of evaluating a Shape requires control structures beyond SPARQL, e.g. recursively following and processing valueShape links.
18:54:51 <Labra> peter: I really want this kind of thing to work on the DBPEdia scale
18:55:30 <pfps> I think that the proposal should be whether the guts of SHACL (i.e., the part that actually does stuff) can be done via a translation to SPARQL
18:55:39 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:55:43 <ericP> Labra: some parts of the current spec that aren't covered by SPARLQ, e.g. recursive shapes
18:56:07 <ericP> ... i think there are others that can't be covered by SPARQL.
18:56:17 <ericP> ... templates are outside of SPARQL
18:56:26 <pfps> The appeal to recursive shapes would be more compelling if there was a version of recursive shapes that actually worked right
18:56:47 <ericP> ... i'd like a language that have different profiles, with different expressivity and complexity
18:56:54 <ericP> q+
18:57:02 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:57:44 <Labra> ericP: Asks a question if you can implement the validation using a series of SPARQL queries
18:58:08 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: "SHACL highlevel" shall be implementable in SPARQL
18:58:15 <Labra> can you implement in SPIN using SPIN templates...there are different interpretations to the meaning can you implement it in SPARQL
18:58:41 <Labra> +q
18:58:50 <pfps> +1
18:58:57 <cygri> But which of these three meanings of “implementable in SPARQL” is the question?
18:58:58 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:58:58 <ericP> -1
18:59:08 <Labra> +q: to ask what it means to be implementable in SPArql
18:59:46 <pfps> The distinction has to be between a single query and an unlimited number of queries
19:00:01 <hknublau> +q
19:00:10 <TallTed> PROPOSED: "SHACL highlevel" shall be implementable with 1-n SPARQL queries
19:00:21 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:00:26 <TallTed> PROPOSED: "SHACL highlevel" shall be implementable with 1 to n SPARQL queries
19:00:27 <pfps> ack
19:00:29 <Arnaud> queue=
19:00:29 <Labra> Holger: the question becomes meaningless
19:00:56 <Labra> ...its too general
19:01:34 <pfps> In a certain sense anything in SHACL can be answered using a single SPARQL query - SELECT * from ?a ?b ?c
19:02:21 <pfps> q+
19:02:33 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:02:38 <Dimitris> PROPOSED: "SHACL highlevel" shall be efficiently implementable in  SPARQL
19:03:12 <Labra> peter: says there are proposals from the sparql side and none proposals from the non-sparql side
19:03:22 <Labra> +q
19:03:38 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:04:08 <ericP> Labra: i don't think there's a SPARQL and a non-SPARQL camp.
19:04:28 <ericP> ... i'm in favor of a high-level language constructs
19:04:46 <ericP> ... if some of them are very complex, then we can profile.
19:04:47 <pfps> At some point all this has to be implemented, so it's not as if the high-level language can be just anything
19:05:12 <ericP> it's not like we're short of ShEx implementations
19:05:38 <Labra> @peter: but it is not "anything"
19:06:02 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: SHACL shall include an extension mechanism based on SPARQL
19:06:07 <pfps> as far as I can tell there are *NO* ShEx implementations
19:06:07 <Dimitris> *define high level :) *
19:06:09 <Labra> +q
19:06:14 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:06:49 <TallTed> ... shall include an extension mechanism, which will support SPARQL and may support other means...
19:07:18 <cygri> … (not precluding other extension mechanisms)
19:07:38 <ericP> Labra: want support for SPARQL extensions to be optional. also want be able to have e.g. Javascript
19:08:13 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: SHACL shall include an extension mechanism allowing among other things to extend the highlevel functionality with SPARQL
19:08:15 <ericP> ... e.g. HTML allows <script type="application/javascript"/> as well as other languages
19:08:26 <ericP> +1
19:08:26 <TallTed> +1
19:08:28 <Labra> +1
19:08:30 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:08:30 <hknublau> +1
19:08:30 <hsolbrig> +1
19:08:31 <SimonSteyskal> +1
19:08:31 <pfps> +0.5
19:08:33 <Dimitris> +1
19:08:38 <kcoyle> +1
19:08:46 <cygri> Well this can be read as saying that there *must* be other things beside sparql
19:09:00 <cygri> -1
19:09:12 <pfps> I agree with Richard
19:09:38 <Labra> cygri: says that we need to have proposals
19:09:54 <Labra> Arnaud: says that it is like HTML and Javascript
19:10:00 <pfps> -1
19:10:12 <Labra> ...we can have any kind of extension mechanism
19:10:28 <pfps> q+
19:10:40 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:11:17 <Labra> peter: says that it looks like the extension mechanism in shape expresions which is completely broken
19:11:50 <Labra> ...the extension mechanism is not even part of the language...
19:12:15 <Labra> ...if we are going to do extension mechanism they should be first class and be integratable with the rest of the language
19:12:26 <Labra> EricP: asks why?
19:12:54 <Labra> @peter: that's about macros
19:13:03 <Labra> +q
19:13:35 <Labra> in Holger the sparql extension is integrated in SHACL
19:14:01 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:14:34 <ericP> Labra: peter isn't opposed to an extension mechanism; he just doesn't like the one in shex
19:14:55 <cygri> q+
19:15:02 <ericP> ... i just don't want the extensions to be limited to SPARQL
19:15:08 <pfps> I think that a SHACL that is divided into a small core and an extension mechanism needs an extension mechanism that is integrated into the language
19:15:08 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:15:59 <Labra> cygri: scripts made in HTML have some access to the DOM
19:16:07 <Labra> +q
19:16:53 <pfps> +1 to Richard
19:17:08 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:17:52 <Zakim> -hsolbrig
19:17:58 <ericP> Labra: agree with cygri's point that we may need a structure for what gets passed to the extensions, e.g. subject, etc.
19:18:08 <cygri> That’s sufficient to meet the charter.
19:18:16 <ericP> ... if we limit to SPARQL, we're limiting to SHACL
19:18:47 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:18:53 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/raised
19:19:01 <Labra> Arnaud: Acknowledge Richerd for raising some issues
19:19:05 <Labra> +q
19:19:18 <Labra> Arthur: question about the issues
19:19:33 <hsolbrig> Zakim won't let me back in...
19:19:37 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:19:39 <Labra> if you put the name of the issue in your email it will be automatically listed in the tracker
19:19:44 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:20:08 <pfps> Again, if there is going to be something like an arbitrary extension mechanism, there is no proposal on the table, and there needs to be one  If anyone wants to go this way, then they should put forward a proposal ASAP.
19:20:53 <pfps> +1 to open all the raised issues
19:21:08 <ArthurRyman> +1 to open them
19:21:09 <Dimitris> +1 to open all
19:21:10 <ericP> +1 to open
19:21:13 <Labra> +1
19:21:18 <hsolbrig> Zakim won't let me in.  A key thing (imo) on extensions is that the must not have side effects like adding more triples to the target graph, etc.
19:21:37 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: open all raised issues: ISSUE-22 through ISSUE-34
19:21:45 <pfps> I think that no one told Zakim that the meeting is 90 minutes!
19:21:47 <pfps> +1
19:21:48 <ericP> +1
19:21:48 <hknublau> +1
19:21:48 <cygri> +1
19:21:50 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:21:52 <TallTed> +1
19:21:53 <Labra> +1
19:21:55 <kcoyle> +1
19:22:05 <SimonSteyskal> +1
19:22:52 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: open all raised issues: ISSUE-22 through ISSUE-34
19:23:21 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:23:56 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:24:54 <Labra> Arnaud: we are working with multiple drafts
19:25:09 <Labra> ...people should make proposals on how to close the issues
19:25:18 <Labra> ...send email or create a page specific for the issue
19:25:36 <Labra> ...if there is a proposal that is sticking mark the issue as pending review
19:25:52 <pfps> q+
19:26:04 <Labra> Arthur: says that it is not productive to have several drafts
19:26:10 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:26:33 <Labra> Peter: my viewpoint its much more benefitial to have multiple specs in parallel
19:26:44 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:26:55 <Labra> we would spend more time with spelling changes
19:27:05 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:27:11 <Labra> we haven't even decided about going in a particular direction
19:27:40 <Labra> Arthur: how long are we going to be ?
19:27:49 <Labra> ...with multiple drafts
19:28:44 <Labra> Arnaud: I proposed to have two weeks to work on proposals
<Labra> ... and have a vote but peter didn't like that
19:29:13 <cygri> q+
19:29:44 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:30:01 <Labra> peter: we hear that there are these things coming
19:30:22 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
19:30:36 <pfps> ... but nothing has come
19:32:03 <Labra> cygri: the shex camp have a clear opinion about how things should work
19:32:33 <Labra> Arnaud: clarify if we have to chose, the whole document can be changed at any time
19:32:58 <pfps> The problem with replacing sections, is that the most likely changes are to replace all the sections
19:33:34 <Labra> ??: once a document is published as a draft it will be difficult to change it
19:34:09 <Zakim> -hknublau
19:34:10 <Zakim> -arthurRyman
19:34:10 <Zakim> -kcoyle
19:34:11 <Zakim> -labra
19:34:12 <Zakim> -ericP
19:34:13 <Zakim> -Arnaud
19:34:14 <Zakim> -TallTed
19:34:15 <Zakim> -cygri
19:34:16 <Zakim> -SimonSteyskal
19:34:18 <Zakim> -Dimitris
19:34:19 <Zakim> -pfps
19:34:19 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended
19:34:19 <Zakim> Attendees were pfps, +1.510.435.aaaa, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, +1.510.435.aabb, kcoyle, ericP, labra, hsolbrig, Dimitris, hknublau, +1.905.764.aadd, arthurRyman, TallTed, cygri,
19:34:19 <Zakim> ... BartvanLeeuwen
<Labra> Present: pfps, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, kcoyle, ericP, labra, hsolbrig, Dimitris, hknublau, ArthurRyman, TallTed, cygri, BartvanLeeuwen
19:34:26 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:34:26 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:34:26 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
19:34:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:34:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/02-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:34:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:34:35 <RRSAgent> I see no action items