17:57:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:57:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-irc
17:57:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:57:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:58:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:58:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
17:58:01 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:58:02 <trackbot> Date: 09 April 2015
17:59:03 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, who is on the phone
17:59:04 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', BartvanLeeuwen
17:59:44 <cygri> cygri has joined #shapes
18:01:00 <Arnaud> zakim, this is shapes
18:01:00 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud; that matches DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM
18:01:08 <Arnaud> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:01:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1, pfps, ??P5, kcoyle, [IPcaller], Arnaud
18:01:11 <SimonSteyskal> zakim, ??P1 is me
18:01:11 <Zakim> +SimonSteyskal; got it
18:01:22 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??p5 is me
18:01:22 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
18:01:27 <cygri> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:01:27 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
18:01:34 <cygri> q-
18:01:49 <Arnaud> queue=
18:02:06 <Zakim> +??P9
18:02:15 <Arnaud> 41#
18:03:37 <Zakim> +arthurRyman
18:03:49 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:03:59 <ArthurRyman> ArthurRyman has joined #shapes
18:03:59 <Arnaud> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:03:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see SimonSteyskal, pfps, BartvanLeeuwen, kcoyle, cygri, Arnaud, ??P9, arthurRyman
18:05:38 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:05:46 <ericP> Zakim, ??P9 is me
18:05:46 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
18:05:50 <ericP> ack me
18:05:58 <ericP> ack ??P9
18:06:28 <Arnaud> scribe: ArthurRyman
18:06:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:06:32 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:06:41 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.04.09
18:06:54 <Labra> Zakim, [IPCaller] is labra
18:06:54 <Zakim> +labra; got it
18:06:58 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:07:27 <Arnaud> topic: Admin
18:08:13 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
18:08:20 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
18:08:20 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
18:08:21 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:08:21 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:09:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:09:23 <hknublau> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:09:23 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
18:09:34 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: delay approval of minutes to next week so Arthur can make edit
18:09:41 <ArthurRyman> subTopic: Next F2F
18:10:40 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: only 5 people may attend in person
18:11:00 <Labra> +q
18:11:10 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:11:31 <ArthurRyman> unable to hear Jose
18:12:00 <Labra> labra: I just wanted to say that I was not sure
18:12:43 <Labra> labra: for me, it is not a problem if it is virtual
18:12:54 <Labra> because the travel expenses are high
18:13:22 <Zakim> -cygri
18:13:38 <hknublau> maybe just have 6 hours per day
18:13:53 <hknublau> on phone yes
18:13:54 <Zakim> -labra
18:14:28 <SimonSteyskal> I definitely can't attend in person as already stated in the wiki
18:14:38 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:14:48 <Labra> zakim, [IPCaller] is labra
18:14:48 <Zakim> +labra; got it
18:15:01 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: we will make a decision next week to either meet in-person or virtually for F2F3
<ArthurRyman> subtopic: TPAC2015
18:16:50 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: who could attend a F2F at the next TPAC in Japan?
18:16:54 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:16:55 <pfps> Going to Japan for a F2F is not something that I'm enthused about.
18:17:17 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: would you attend a WG F2F in October in Sapporo Japan?
18:17:18 <kcoyle> i'd take advantage of the excuse to go to japan
18:17:21 <ericP> no
18:17:22 <Arnaud> +!
18:17:26 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:17:26 <Arnaud> +1
18:17:29 <ericP> 0
18:17:36 <ArthurRyman> 0
18:17:37 <SimonSteyskal> +0.5
18:17:38 <hknublau> -0.5
18:17:39 <pfps> -0.5
18:17:40 <ericP> -.5
18:17:40 <kcoyle> +.5
18:17:44 <Labra> 0
18:18:38 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: would you attend a WG F2F in October in France?
18:18:44 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:18:44 <Labra> +1
18:18:46 <kcoyle> +1
18:18:47 <hknublau> time zone would be ideal
18:18:47 <ArthurRyman> 0
18:18:47 <pfps> ISWC is on the east coast two weeks before TPAC, I would go to a F2F near ISWC
18:18:51 <Arnaud> s/October/Fall/
18:18:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:19:06 <pfps> +0.5 France is more likely than Japan
18:19:08 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:19:08 <ericP> +1
18:19:13 <hknublau> -1
18:19:13 <cygri> cygri has joined #shapes
18:19:22 <TallTed> I'd love to go to any.... but unlikely to get budget of time/money
18:20:06 <cygri> ack [IPcaller]
18:20:13 <cygri> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:20:13 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
18:20:35 <ArthurRyman> Topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues
18:20:50 <Arnaud> ISSUE-33
18:20:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Shifting section "Shape Selection" to introduction? -- pending review
18:20:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/33
18:21:35 <pfps> I'm fine with closing this issue as "not currently completely relevant to the WG"
18:22:07 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: ISSUE-33 is editorial
18:22:44 <hknublau> +q
18:22:59 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:23:40 <ArthurRyman> Holger: How do I close issues?
18:23:56 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: Mark them as pending review and we'll discuss it.
18:24:03 <Labra> +q
18:24:17 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: proposes to close ISSUE-33
18:24:26 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:25:15 <Arnaud> ISSUE-35
18:25:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Language-tags -- raised
18:25:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/35
18:25:44 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:25:47 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-35
18:25:48 <pfps> open
18:25:49 <ArthurRyman> Aranud: proposes to open ISSUE-35
18:25:50 <TallTed> +1
18:25:54 <pfps> +1
18:25:59 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:26:05 <kcoyle> +1
18:26:12 <cygri> +1
18:26:12 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:26:17 <hknublau> Arnaud, the two tickets that I have proposals for are not even open (they are RAISED only)
18:26:17 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-35
18:26:22 <ericP> +1
18:26:27 <ArthurRyman> s/Aranud/Arnaud/
18:26:46 <Zakim> +Dimitris
18:27:02 <Dimitris> *apologies for joining late*
18:27:09 <pfps> The naming issues look a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but I'm not against opening them.
18:27:52 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: open ISSUE-36 through ISSUE-39
18:27:56 <cygri> +1
18:27:57 <hknublau> +1
18:28:01 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:28:05 <kcoyle> +1
18:28:06 <Dimitris> +1
18:28:08 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:28:09 <Labra> +1
18:28:10 <TallTed> +1
18:28:16 <ericP> +1
18:28:22 <ArthurRyman> q+
18:28:24 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: open ISSUE-36 through ISSUE-39
18:28:35 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:29:12 <ArthurRyman> RESOLVED: ISSUE-33 is closed
18:29:26 <Arnaud> ISSUE-41
18:29:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Using property paths to refer to values/types? -- raised
18:29:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/41
18:31:10 <Arnaud> ISSUE-42
18:31:10 <trackbot> ISSUE-42 -- Adding sh:notEqual to potential datatype properties? -- raised
18:31:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/42
18:31:27 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: open ISSUE-41, ISSUE-42
18:31:29 <cygri> +1
18:31:31 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:31:32 <hknublau> +1
18:31:34 <kcoyle> +1
18:31:35 <ericP> +1
18:31:36 <Dimitris> +1
18:31:38 <Labra> +1
18:31:39 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:31:46 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: open ISSUE-41, ISSUE-42
18:31:51 <pfps> ISSUE-41 is tied up with the status of SPARQL as an extension mechanism.  If SPARQL is truely integrated into SHACL, then there are property paths in SHACL and the only thing left to consider is whether they are in the high-level language.  If SPARQL is not truely a part of SHACL, then there is more to think about here.
18:32:29 <ArthurRyman> Topic: Publication of UCR
18:33:29 <ArthurRyman> ericP: UCR not published due to workload contention
18:34:00 <Arnaud> action: ericp to publish the UCR by 14 April 2015
18:34:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - Publish the ucr by 14 april 2015 [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2015-04-16].
18:34:42 <pfps> I didn't notice any forward progress.
18:35:08 <pfps> q+
18:35:22 <Arnaud> ack pfps
<ArthurRyman> topic: Requirements
18:36:48 <Arnaud> 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes
18:36:48 <ericP> -> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes Closed Shapes Req
18:37:19 <ArthurRyman> Action: aryman to advance discussion of S40 by 16 April 2015
18:37:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - Advance discussion of s40 by 16 april 2015 [on Arthur Ryman - due 2015-04-16].
18:40:24 <ArthurRyman> subTopic: 2.6.11 Closed Shapes
18:40:27 <cygri> q+ to ask whether this is a requirement for a language construct or for an API operation
18:41:16 <ArthurRyman> pfps: concerned that there is no definition for how closed shapes work
18:42:08 <ArthurRyman> pfps: requires an existence proof for closed shapes that behaves intuitively from the user pov
18:42:10 <hknublau> I still want a definition of this before I can vote, -1 otherwise
18:42:43 <Arnaud> ack cygri
18:42:43 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask whether this is a requirement for a language construct or for an API operation
18:43:59 <ArthurRyman> cygri: asks if it can be possible to indicate which part of a graph is considered to be closed
18:45:18 <pfps> If closed shapes are on the API then is it supposed to admit all SHACL shapes?
18:45:34 <ArthurRyman> ericP: shex api allows this via api. not opposed to making it a language construct
18:47:30 <kcoyle> +q
18:47:36 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:47:37 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: expects to be able to say: "graph contains nodes a, b, c, and no others" in the shape
18:48:05 <ericP> -> http://w3.org/brief/NDQ2 existence proof of closed shapes
18:48:35 <ArthurRyman> kcoyle: reminds us that the shape is documentation of the documents so an api solution is not aligned with that requirement
18:49:00 <pfps> gives error: ReferenceError: checkRemaining is not defined
18:49:38 <hknublau> q+
18:49:41 <Arnaud> 2.7.2 Function and Property Macros
18:49:49 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Function_and_Property_Macros
18:49:50 <ArthurRyman> subTopic: 2.7.2 Function and Macro Requirement
18:50:33 <ArthurRyman> hknublau: willing to make macros a SPARQL-only extension
18:51:10 <Labra> q+
18:51:18 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:51:43 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:52:17 <ArthurRyman> ericP: withdraw my objection since we are not distinguishing between core vs SPARQL in the Requirements doc
18:52:22 <hknublau> q+
18:52:55 <ArthurRyman> Labra: will withdraw objection but want the macro mechanism to not be SPARQL-only
18:52:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve 2.7.2 Function and Property Macros https://www.w3.org/2.7.2 Function and Property Macros2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Function_and_Property_Macros
18:53:02 <pfps> +0.5
18:53:05 <TallTed> +1
18:53:05 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:53:06 <ArthurRyman> +1
18:53:07 <cygri> 0
18:53:08 <ericP> +0
18:53:08 <Labra> 0.5
18:53:11 <hknublau> +1
18:53:16 <kcoyle> +0
18:53:29 <Dimitris> +1
18:53:53 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve 2.7.2 Function and Property Macros https://www.w3.org/2.7.2 Function and Property Macros2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Function_and_Property_Macros
18:53:58 <cygri> (I think this is a general SPARQL issue and not really validation-specific, therefore this WG is not the best place for it)
18:54:20 <cygri> (And I don’t know what a non-SPARQL version of this would look like)
18:54:23 <hknublau> q-
18:54:27 <ArthurRyman> Topic: SHACL Spec
18:57:22 <ArthurRyman> Arnaud: discussing ISSUE-2 what is the audience
18:57:53 <kcoyle> +q
18:57:55 <ArthurRyman> q+
18:58:01 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:58:49 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
18:58:50 <ArthurRyman> kcoyle: discusses three audience division
19:00:54 <Zakim> -ericP
19:02:01 <Zakim> +??P20
19:02:06 <cygri> q+
19:02:11 <ericP> Zakim, ??P20 is me
19:02:11 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
19:02:19 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:02:35 <pfps_> pfps_ has joined #shapes
19:02:44 <ericP> i got disconnected, but used that to show that the telecon reservation has been extended
19:03:11 <pfps_> q+
19:03:13 <ArthurRyman> ArthurRyman: 1) users who know OO but not SPARQL and will use the high level functionality, 2) authors who write new custom constraints in SPARQL, 3) implementers of SHACL engines - need precise spec
19:03:30 <kcoyle> link to arthur's email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0228.html
19:03:33 <ArthurRyman> cygri: add 4) this WG - writers of the spec
19:04:06 <pfps_> +1 to richard  - there are many audiences, with different knowledge sets
19:04:23 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:05:12 <ArthurRyman> pfps: agrees with Richard - we need to satisfy ourselves in order to finish
19:05:56 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-2 specifying that our audience is made of four groups 1) people who don't know SPARQL (e.g. app developers) and will use the high level functionality, 2) people who know SPARQL and will use the extension mechanism to go beyond the high level functionality, 3) implementers of SHACL engine, 4) spec developers and reviewers (starting with this WG members)
19:06:03 <ericP> we forgot to list the RDF haters who look for any reason to condem RDF
19:06:06 <cygri> q+
19:06:09 <pfps> +1
19:06:14 <Labra> q+
19:06:15 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:06:46 <Labra> labra: to say that the group 2) is assuming that the high level extension is going to be based on SPARQL only
19:07:12 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:07:16 <TallTed> I agree with Richard...  distinction is less about knowing SPARQL and more about whether they're a basic user, an advanced user, an edge-case user...
19:07:17 <Labra> labra: if the high-level extension is generic, that group should not need to know SPARQL...maybe javascript
19:07:31 <pfps> -1 to javascript
19:07:47 <ArthurRyman> cygri: propose to redefine 1) as those who read SHACL n=but don't write it
19:09:38 <Labra> @pfps: but the extension mechanism may not be restricted to SPARQL...could be other language (not necessarily SPARQL)
19:10:02 <kcoyle> not true
19:10:11 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:11:01 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:11:01 <ArthurRyman> Labra: 2) should consist of people who know SOME other language
19:12:45 <ArthurRyman> ArthurRyman: 1) consists of developers who both consume and provide APIs and need to both read and write shape docs
19:13:09 <pfps> I'm against calling SPARQL-in-SHACL as an *extension* mechanism.
19:13:19 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-2 specifying that our audience is made of four groups 1) people who don't know or want to use SPARQL (e.g. app developers) and will use the high level functionality, 2) people who know SPARQL and will use the extension mechanism to go beyond the high level functionality, 3) implementers of SHACL engine, 4) spec developers and reviewers (starting with this WG members)
19:13:40 <kcoyle> +q
19:13:41 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
19:13:41 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
19:13:48 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:14:24 <TallTed> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-2 specifying that our audience is made of four groups 1) people who are satisfied by the simple, high-level functionality, 2) people who will use the extension mechanism to go beyond the high level functionality, 3) implementers of SHACL engines, 4) spec developers and reviewers (starting with this WG members)
19:14:36 <pfps> There was a long debate about moving SPARQL out of the first part of Holger's document so at least some in the WG want to divide audiences based on whether they know SPARQL.
19:14:51 <pfps> q+
19:15:38 <Labra> @pfps: people didn't want to move SPARQL out of the spec because they didn't know SPARQL
19:15:46 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:15:50 <cygri> q+
19:16:18 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:16:40 <ArthurRyman> TallTed: the distinction is a) are you happy with the basics or do you want to write custom constraints, b) do you want to implement an engine for the basics or do you want to support SPARQL too
19:17:46 <ArthurRyman> pfps: SPARQL is a core technology so not mentioning it is "marketting"
19:18:03 <pfps> If SHACL uses RDF, then the documents should not hide that fact.  If SHACL uses SPARQL, then the documents should not hide that fact.
19:18:34 <ericP> does SHACL core use SPARQL? do users need to know that?
19:18:35 <Labra> @pfps but the mandatory use of SPARQL has not been decided yet
19:18:38 <pfps> Ted's distinction is not a bad one.
19:18:46 <Labra> +1 to Ted
19:18:50 <pfps> @Labra note the "If"
19:19:05 <ericP> +1 to Ted's distinction
19:19:15 <Labra> @pfps: ok
19:19:22 <ericP> pfps, "iff"?
19:19:47 <ArthurRyman> +1 to Ted's distinction
19:20:04 <pfps> @eric If SHACL does not use SPARQL, then free to prominently state that in the primer!
19:20:24 <pfps> q+
19:20:28 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:21:04 <ArthurRyman> q+
19:21:29 <Arnaud> ack ArthurRyman
19:22:30 <pfps> I am adamantly opposed to putting out a guide-like document without knowing what SHACL is.
19:23:03 <kcoyle> +1 to arthur's suggestion - move forward with Holger's draft
19:23:28 <ArthurRyman> ArthurRyman: Holger proposed a division of the SHACL spec into Part 1 and 2 - Part 1 is ready for FPWD
19:23:55 <pfps> I do not believe that Part 1 of Holger's document is anywhere near ready for FPWD.
19:24:05 <ArthurRyman> subTopic: Discuss Holger's Property Name Proposals
19:24:08 <Arnaud> ISSUE-38: Naming of cardinality facets
19:24:08 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-38 Naming of cardinality facets.
19:24:29 <ericP> q+ to oppose count
19:24:35 <TallTed> issue-38?
19:24:35 <trackbot> issue-38 -- Naming of cardinality facets -- open
19:24:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/38
19:24:37 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:24:37 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to oppose count
19:24:41 <pfps> The naming of the SHACL properties is something that I care very, very little about.
19:25:25 <ArthurRyman> ericP: objects to use of "count"
19:25:34 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names#Cardinality
19:25:38 <cygri> +1 to ericP
19:25:43 <ArthurRyman> ericP: stick with just minCount and maxCount
19:26:26 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-38, using minCount and maxCount (no Count)
19:26:35 <ericP> +1
19:27:02 <Labra> +1
19:27:12 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:27:14 <hknublau> 0
19:27:19 <SimonSteyskal> +1
19:27:19 <TallTed> +0
19:27:20 <pfps> 0
19:27:23 <kcoyle> +1
19:27:24 <cygri> +1
19:27:26 <ArthurRyman> fyi, oslc has "exactly-one"
19:27:31 <Dimitris> +0.5
19:27:32 <kcoyle> "loud and clear", arnaud
19:27:46 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-38, using minCount and maxCount (no count)
19:28:16 <cygri> ISSUE-39?
19:28:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- Naming of value shape facet -- open
19:28:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/39
19:28:17 <kcoyle> re-load - i just voted
19:28:41 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names#Value_Shape
19:29:19 <ArthurRyman> @pfps What is missing in Holger's Part 1?
19:30:02 <kcoyle> vlueshape
19:30:08 <kcoyle> but spelled correctly
19:30:10 <SimonSteyskal> but we do have sh:valueType right?
19:30:14 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-39 using shape (not valueShape)
19:30:22 <hknublau> +1
19:30:24 <cygri> +1
19:30:25 <ArthurRyman> +1
19:30:26 <SimonSteyskal> +1
19:30:27 <ericP> +0
19:30:31 <kcoyle> +0
19:30:32 <Labra> 0
19:30:33 <Dimitris> +0
19:30:47 <TallTed> -0.5
19:30:55 <pfps> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
19:31:52 <Labra> +1 to be consistent
19:32:13 <Labra> +q to say that we may vote both together
19:32:33 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:32:33 <Zakim> Labra, you wanted to say that we may vote both together
19:32:38 <TallTed> TallTed: shapes within shapes seems potentially confusing and problematic
19:32:53 <hknublau> But then we’d also need sh:valueDatatype
19:33:10 <hknublau> I’d close it now and we can reopen it if we call the other valueType.
19:33:16 <SimonSteyskal> or we stick to sh:shape, sh:type, sh:datatype
19:33:16 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-39 using shape (not valueShape)
19:33:17 <SimonSteyskal> ;)
19:33:19 <Labra> ok
19:33:34 <cygri> The deck chairs are nice and tidy!
19:34:12 <Zakim> -pfps
19:34:13 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
19:34:14 <Zakim> -labra
19:34:15 <Zakim> -cygri
19:34:16 <Zakim> -SimonSteyskal
19:34:16 <Zakim> -hknublau
19:34:17 <Zakim> -TallTed
19:34:18 <Zakim> -arthurRyman
19:34:19 <Zakim> -Dimitris
19:34:20 <Zakim> -Arnaud
19:34:21 <Zakim> -ericP
19:34:26 <Zakim> -kcoyle
19:34:26 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:34:26 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:34:27 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pfps, kcoyle, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, BartvanLeeuwen, cygri, arthurRyman, ericP, labra, TallTed, hknublau, Dimitris
19:34:27 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended
19:34:27 <Zakim> Attendees were pfps, kcoyle, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, BartvanLeeuwen, cygri, arthurRyman, ericP, labra, TallTed, hknublau, Dimitris
19:34:30 <Dimitris> Dimitris has left #shapes
19:34:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:34:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:34:35 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:34:35 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-actions.rdf :
19:34:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ericp to publish the UCR by 14 April 2015 [1]
19:34:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-irc#T18-34-00
19:34:35 <RRSAgent> ACTION: aryman to advance discussion of S40 by 16 April 2015 [2]
19:34:35 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-irc#T18-37-19