17:59:01 RRSAgent has joined #shapes 17:59:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-shapes-irc 17:59:03 RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes 17:59:03 Zakim has joined #shapes 17:59:05 Zakim, this will be SHAPES 17:59:05 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 17:59:06 Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference 17:59:06 Date: 16 April 2015 17:59:42 aryman has joined #shapes 17:59:47 cygri has joined #shapes 18:00:00 no zakiim on the phone? 18:00:17 hsolbrig has joined #shapes 18:00:34 doesn't recognize passcode 18:00:41 oh oh 18:00:43 i mean, on phone 18:00:44 zakim doesn't like me 18:00:55 no, harold, it doesn't like anyone today 18:00:58 zakim appears to be broken or overloaded 18:01:00 742737 is not valid 18:01:10 zakim seems to be in limbo 18:01:18 it hung up on me 18:01:22 zakim, are you there? 18:01:22 I don't understand your question, hsolbrig. 18:01:27 SimonSteyskal has joined #shapes 18:01:35 zakim, code? 18:01:35 sorry, cygri, I don't know what conference this is 18:02:19 yikes 18:02:21 I'm sorry, Hal, I can't do that... 18:02:25 the telco part of zakim doesn't seem to be working 18:02:47 zakim, close all windows and restart 18:02:47 I don't understand 'close all windows and restart', cygri 18:02:47 I'm pinging sysreq 18:02:54 is eric trying to see what has gone wrong? 18:03:18 yeah, but it's not going well 18:03:48 Zakim, please dail ericP-mobile 18:03:48 I don't understand 'please dail ericP-mobile', ericP 18:03:55 eric, what's the emergency plan? 18:03:57 Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile 18:03:57 sorry, ericP, I don't know what conference this is 18:04:01 panic 18:04:05 I ping #sysreq but no response yet 18:04:07 I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that 18:04:08 also getting "This passcode is not valid" 18:04:11 put your head under your desk 18:04:13 yeah, i saw 18:04:42 Zakim, open the pod bay doors. 18:04:42 I don't understand 'open the pod bay doors', hsolbrig 18:05:07 let's try to get a different passcode 18:05:19 how many are we usually? 18:05:30 zakim, room for 20 for 90mn? 18:05:31 I don't understand your question, Arnaud. 18:05:36 Our name is legion 18:05:38 Zakim, space for 20 for 90 minutes? 18:05:40 ok, ericP; conference Team_(shapes)18:05Z scheduled with code 26632 (CONF2) for 90 minutes until 1935Z 18:05:49 ah 18:05:50 Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile 18:05:50 ok, ericP; the call is being made 18:05:51 Team_(shapes)18:05Z has now started 18:05:53 +EricP 18:06:06 +pfps 18:06:08 +??P2 18:06:08 OK that worked. 18:06:15 same passcode? 18:06:17 zakim, ??P2 is me 18:06:17 +SimonSteyskal; got it 18:06:19 I guess that Zakim lost its marbles (and memory) 18:06:28 26632 karen 18:06:31 +Arnaud 18:06:36 +[IPcaller] 18:06:37 +[IPcaller.a] 18:06:45 zakim, who's on the phone? 18:06:45 On the phone I see EricP, pfps, SimonSteyskal, Arnaud, [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a] 18:06:54 + +1.510.435.aaaa 18:06:56 zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me 18:06:56 +cygri; got it 18:07:00 zakim, Ipcaller is me 18:07:00 +hsolbrig; got it 18:07:03 zakim, ack [IPcaller.a] 18:07:03 I see no one on the speaker queue 18:07:05 zakim, aaaa is me 18:07:05 +kcoyle; got it 18:07:11 what about minutes?? 18:07:21 zakim, mute me 18:07:21 cygri should now be muted 18:07:24 that should be ok 18:07:39 rrsagent is logging so we're good 18:07:44 I can scribe 18:07:56 scribenick: pfps 18:08:03 chair: Arnaud 18:08:09 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.04.16 18:08:14 + +1.905.764.aabb 18:08:32 zakim, who's on the phone? 18:08:32 On the phone I see EricP, pfps, SimonSteyskal, Arnaud, hsolbrig, cygri (muted), kcoyle, +1.905.764.aabb 18:08:35 topic: Admin 18:08:47 zakim, aabb is aryman 18:08:47 +aryman; got it 18:09:33 Zakim, code? 18:09:33 the conference code is 26632 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), TallTed 18:09:51 +[OpenLink] 18:10:00 Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me 18:10:00 +TallTed; got it 18:10:00 arnaud: Minutes 18:10:10 PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 2 and 9 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/02-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-minutes.html 18:10:20 Minutes look fine to me 18:10:22 hknublau has joined #shapes 18:10:45 +1 18:10:48 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 2 and 9 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/02-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/04/09-shapes-minutes.html 18:11:07 arnaud: next meeting next week 18:11:08 Labra has joined #shapes 18:12:01 arnaud: F2F3 to be virtual due to low expected physical attendance? 18:12:25 PROPOSED: Change F2F3 to Virtual F2F - roughly 6h/day over 3 days between 9am and 5pm ET 18:12:26 PROPOSED: Change F2F3 to Virtual F2F - roughly 6h/day over 3 days between 9am and 5pm ET 18:12:34 0 18:12:44 I may not be able to scribe 18:13:02 RESOLVED: Change F2F3 to Virtual F2F - roughly 6h/day over 3 days between 9am and 5pm ET 18:13:17 +[IPcaller] 18:13:39 zakim, [IPcaller] is labra 18:13:39 +labra; got it 18:13:44 Topic: Tracking of actions & issues 18:14:05 Arnaud: pending actions - none 18:14:16 Arnaud: open actions - two 18:14:28 Arnaud: ACTION-17 has been done 18:14:42 Arnaud: ACTION-18 also done, will be discussed later today 18:15:13 Arnaud: Raised issues will be discussed later 18:15:17 +q 18:15:23 ack Labra 18:15:42 labra: what happened to the language tags requirement? 18:15:54 arnaud: where is this? 18:16:13 I am trying to join the call but it says “you are the first participant”. Had two attempt already. 18:16:17 arnaud: defer to requirements section 18:16:29 Topic: User Stories/Use cases 18:16:58 Arnaud: FPWD User Stories document out 18:17:36 Arnaud: Given that drafts are accessible the idea of publish-often is not as important 18:18:03 Arnaud: But having a heartbeat is still somewhat important 18:18:28 Arnaud: What's next for User Stories? What about S40? 18:18:53 -hsolbrig 18:18:59 zakim, who is making noise? 18:19:09 cygri, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TallTed (55%), EricP (23%) 18:19:28 zakim, mute TallTed 18:19:28 TallTed should now be muted 18:19:30 Simon: Plan to restructure to have use cases along with stories 18:19:45 kcoyle: also adding in new stuff 18:20:11 zakim, unmute TallTed 18:20:11 TallTed should no longer be muted 18:20:37 Simon: changes are in progress 18:21:11 Arnaud: User Story S40 18:21:19 Arnaud: Peter is still requesting further clarification 18:22:05 +[IPcaller] 18:22:20 zakim [IPcaller] is me 18:22:42 pfps: doing working group work the morning of a teleconference is a *bad* idea 18:22:42 q+ 18:22:50 ack cygri 18:23:19 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 18:23:19 +hknublau; got it 18:23:23 cygri: This is not written as a story, but a requirement, as is presupposes a solution 18:24:28 q+ 18:24:32 cygri: The basic idea is that the data may be chopped up into different graphs. 18:24:38 ack aryman 18:24:46 cygri: stating it this way may lead to a better resolution 18:25:05 aryman: there is a story there 18:25:39 +q 18:25:43 zakim, mute me 18:25:43 cygri should now be muted 18:25:51 ack kcoyle 18:25:58 arnaud: what is the way forward? maybe a story with no requirements? 18:26:21 kcoyle: I added an actual story from the library world 18:26:59 arnaud: peter what is your point? 18:27:26 ted: peter has not had a chance to look at the recent changes 18:27:28 There is a story there, but there’s also multiple requirements and an almost specified solution. I don’t think the story is actually contentious; the other things possibly are. 18:27:41 +1 to cygri 18:27:51 Topic: Requirements 18:28:14 Arnaud: Ted added an item about Eric's survey 18:28:34 ericP: The survey was to try to determine what should be in ShEx 18:28:50 Arnaud: Some people have reservations about the survey 18:29:39 Arnaud: But beyond that some working group members feel that a survey would be useful 18:30:02 ericp: Yes - I felt that getting something out now was useful 18:30:27 q+ 18:31:23 ted: I suggest that there be a retitling 18:31:51 ericp: the questionnaire says that it is not from the WG 18:32:02 ack pfps 18:32:22 "Your responses will be given as input to the RDF Data Shapes WG as requirements for SHACL (though this questionnaire is not a product of Working Group)." 18:32:58 + a link to SHACL UC&R 18:33:12 pfps: I was not in a very happy place when the questionnaire came out 18:34:00 arnaud: eric, could you better explain what is going on in the questionnaire 18:34:19 arnaud: is there a link to ShEx 18:34:40 ericp: there is a link to the SHACL User Stories FPWD 18:34:53 arnaud: but no link to ShEx? 18:35:01 ericp: no, I could add that 18:35:20 arnaud: there was a comment from outside the WG that indicated confusion 18:35:41 ericp: I explicitly waited until the FPWD came out 18:35:52 arnaud: please update 18:35:53 eric: OK 18:36:10 arnaud: does that address the current concerns 18:36:49 q+ 18:36:49 arnaud: eric was worried that it would take a long time to come up with a WG-approved questionairre 18:37:06 ack TallTed 18:37:09 q+ 18:37:13 arnaud: should the WG come up with a survey 18:37:24 ted: there is clearly value to collecting this information 18:37:53 ted: we have been working on user stories, and been struggling on terminology that comes out of them 18:38:49 ted: a survey about SHACL requirements would be useful 18:39:24 arnaud: the WG could publish any document explicitly asking for feedback 18:39:49 ted: the existence of the current survey may dilute the effect of later questions 18:39:58 ack aryman 18:40:10 that's my biggest annoyance with the current situation 18:41:15 aryman: a survey should be driven by real-world examples, not by language features 18:41:49 arnaud: there is not much that the WG could do 18:41:51 q+ 18:41:56 ack pfps 18:42:37 pfps: there are lots of things that the WG could do, but perhaps not many of them are reasonable to do 18:42:47 q+ 18:42:53 arnaud: agreed 18:42:55 ack me 18:42:56 ak cygri 18:43:21 the "rebranding" of the questionnaire will have substantial impact on my feeling as to actions going forward. 18:44:00 cygri: part of the issue comes from eric's multiple hats, making clear what is going on it indicated 18:44:03 zakim, mute me 18:44:03 cygri should now be muted 18:44:13 s/ it / is / 18:44:40 arnaud: yes, people make connections that may not intended 18:44:57 arnaud: let's move forward 18:44:59 I think ericP has a Mayo hat, a W3C staff hat, and a Shapes WG team contact hat? 18:45:17 me a Mayo hat - is that with tuna? 18:45:41 arnaud: issue 2.6.11 18:46:07 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes 18:46:13 q+ 18:46:18 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes 18:46:21 ack aryman 18:46:23 ericp: I made some changes to clarify 18:46:31 aryman: I'm fine 18:48:07 pfps: requirements without definitions are OK as long as they get a definition at some time or their supporters withdraw 18:48:09 PROPOSED: Approve 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes 18:48:15 +1 18:48:17 0 18:48:19 +1 18:48:23 +1 18:48:38 +1 18:49:02 ted: I'm confused about the current wording 18:49:56 -1 18:50:00 ted: the intent appears to be to identify "unused" shapes and do something 18:50:51 ted: the words on the wiki don't seem to match what I thought was going on 18:51:16 ericp: I'll try to update 18:51:32 +q 18:51:34 arnaud: thanks, let's try an email exchange to clarify 18:52:26 eric: how about enumerating the options that servers have (reject, ...)? 18:52:55 ted: sounds reasonable 18:52:55 ack hknublau 18:53:01 ericp: OK, I'll go that way 18:53:33 +q 18:53:56 holger: eric - closed shapes fail if an unmentioned predicate is there? 18:54:00 ericp: yes 18:54:01 ack aryman 18:54:45 aryman: holger was talking about unmentioned values, not unmentioned predicates 18:55:45 Suggesting to change second sentence to “Closed shapes flag triples that have predicates that are not explicitly constrained (using sh:property/sh:inverseProperty) in the shape.” 18:56:02 arnaud: let's discuss this by email - maybe the section in the survey could be referenced 18:56:19 ted: that's what should be in the wiki 18:56:37 ericp: but then people complain about it being too specific 18:58:02 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/35 18:58:07 arnaud: we need to handle jose's requirement issue 18:59:05 arnaud: this is a proposal to split a requirement, can we do this now? 18:59:07 q+ 18:59:13 ack pfps 18:59:20 pfps: this is not a simple change 19:00:01 pfps: how about an email warning that this is coming 19:00:15 arnaud: I'll send out an email 19:00:25 labra: that's fine 19:00:39 Topic: SHACL spec 18:57:30 arnaud: there is no current SHACL spec, so please don't imply that there is 19:00:56 arnaud: there is an issue to create a FPWD 19:01:05 arnaud: this was a bit of a surprise 19:01:17 aryman: what is the process then? 19:01:30 aryman: holger suggested that this be done and nothing happened 19:01:42 arnaud: this is a proposal, and not an issue 19:02:00 q+ 19:02:09 arnaud: what to do with the issue 19:02:22 ack aryman 19:02:32 arnaud: there are objections to actually doing the proposal 19:02:50 aryman: there are several parallel efforts 19:03:00 aryman: what is the process to converge? 19:03:18 arnaud: this discussion has come up before 19:04:19 arnaud: there are different opinions on how to proceed 19:04:33 aryman: but there needs to be some deadline 19:04:43 arnaud: there are lots of issues that need to be addressed 19:04:53 aryman: but some are related to a particular solution 19:06:05 pfps: I'm the anti-arthur - pushing to FPWD on this document embodies certain decisions that have not yet been made 19:06:09 empty document? 19:06:26 arthur: a way forward is to only include what has been decided 19:06:28 q+ 19:06:33 q+ 19:06:39 ack pfps 19:06:52 s/arthur/arnaud/ 19:07:55 ack kcoyle 19:08:00 pfps: at some time fundamental decisions have to be made 19:08:51 kcoyle: I don't think that arthur is proposing publishing what we have, just that the WG should start with something cohesive 19:08:52 q+ 19:08:56 q+ 19:09:05 ack aryman 19:10:11 aryman: part of the charter is to define a high level language and that part of the document is stable so let's use that as a starting point and get the high-level language nailed down 19:10:14 q+ 19:10:19 ack pfps 19:10:53 q+ 19:11:00 +q 19:11:01 pfps: as far as I can tell everything is still subject to fundamental disagreement 19:11:02 ack aryman 19:11:27 ISSUE-29 is on the agenda. We could try to resolve it today. 19:11:44 aryman: yes, so let's do something else and at least have something to raise issues against 19:12:34 arnaud: the charter indicates that the WG should have a second working draft on the spec already 19:13:08 arnaud: if there isn't a FPWD for the spec by June then that's a problem 19:13:16 ack hknublau 19:13:20 arnaud: we are close to the point where decisions have to be made 19:14:00 holger: are there fundamental disagreements? we have agreed on formal grounding on SPARQL and extensions via SPARQL 19:14:38 arnaud: ISSUE-29 seems relevant 19:14:57 arnaud: what about ISSUE-43 19:14:59 q+ 19:15:11 PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-43 Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 19:15:13 aryman: let's open it 19:15:18 +1 19:15:18 +1 19:15:19 +1 open 19:15:19 -1 19:15:22 +1 19:15:25 If the chair says it shouldn’t be an issue, then it probably shouldn’t be an issue. 19:15:25 +1 19:15:27 +1 19:15:34 I agree with cygri 19:16:08 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-43 Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 as is 19:16:16 it is also possible to just drop issues 19:16:32 q+ 19:16:33 -1 19:16:33 +1 19:16:42 ack pfps 19:16:53 q+ 19:16:53 -1 19:17:04 ack cygri 19:18:25 cygri: the question is how are we supposed to use issues, I believe that issues are to be used to track problems 19:18:46 cygri: ISSUE-43 is not a problem with a document but a problem with process 19:19:14 ack TallTed 19:19:19 zakim, mute me 19:19:19 cygri should now be muted 19:20:03 ted: peter is objecting to making implicit decisions, what are these? 19:20:35 ted: there should be a date for counter proposals and if none come forward we move forward with this document 19:21:16 arnaud: let's set a deadline 19:21:41 arnaud: the end of the month (April) 19:21:49 ted: proposals don't have to be perfect 19:21:57 PROPOSED: All proposals to be considered should be in decent shape by the end of the month (30 April) or will be dropped 19:22:01 -EricP 19:22:07 +1 19:22:12 +1 19:22:13 +1 19:22:16 +1 19:22:22 0 19:22:28 +1 19:22:32 +1 19:23:05 +1 19:23:12 RESOLVED: All proposals to be considered should be in decent shape by the end of the month (30 April) or will be dropped 19:23:22 arnaud: there has been some time already for proposals to come forward 19:23:32 q+ 19:23:56 ack pfps 19:24:08 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-43 Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1, it's not a real issue and should be addressed at the F2F 19:24:20 pfps: the VF2VF would be a good opportunity to make decisions 19:24:24 +1 19:24:29 +1 19:24:31 +1 19:24:35 +1 19:24:41 +1 19:24:58 0 19:25:05 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-43 Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1, it's not a real issue and should be addressed at the F2F 19:25:07 0 19:25:16 +1 19:25:40 ISSUE-44: How to express dependencies between graphs 19:25:41 Notes added to ISSUE-44 How to express dependencies between graphs. 19:25:44 arnaud: ISSUE-44 19:25:54 ISSUE-44? 19:25:54 ISSUE-44 -- How to express dependencies between graphs -- raised 19:25:54 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/44 19:26:02 This is a real issue, so I see no reason not to open 19:26:47 holger: this is about saying in SHACL that a document needs another one 19:26:55 +1 open it 19:26:57 PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-44: How to express dependencies between graphs 19:26:59 +1 19:27:00 +1 19:27:01 +1 19:27:02 +1 19:27:04 +1 19:27:06 +1 19:27:17 +1 19:27:26 RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-44: How to express dependencies between graphs 19:27:46 arnaud: ISSUE-29 19:28:11 arnaud: this is a fundamental issue 19:28:24 arnaud: there is a resolution to use SPARQL 19:28:45 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/29 19:28:50 pfps: ISSUE-29 includes two SPARQL options to just saying SPARQL doesn't dispose of the entire issue 19:29:04 q+ 19:29:07 q+ 19:29:12 q- 19:29:21 ack aryman 19:29:49 arnaud: given previous decisions the two SPARQL options appear indicated 19:29:55 +q 19:30:14 aryman: it may be necessary to augment SPARQL 19:30:14 ack hknublau 19:30:40