17:57:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:57:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-shapes-irc
17:57:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:57:51 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:57:53 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:57:53 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
17:57:54 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:57:54 <trackbot> Date: 23 April 2015
17:59:09 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has now started
17:59:16 <Zakim> +kcoyle
17:59:51 <Zakim> +pfps
18:00:06 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:00:06 <Zakim> +Arnaud
18:00:28 <Zakim> +??P6
18:00:29 <michel> michel has joined #shapes
18:00:35 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:00:42 <SimonSteyskal> zakim, ??P6 is me
18:00:42 <Zakim> +SimonSteyskal; got it
18:00:55 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
18:01:01 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
18:01:01 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
18:01:03 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:01:03 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:01:35 <Zakim> +michel
18:01:39 <Zakim> +aryman
18:01:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:01:59 <pfps> Greetings.
18:02:04 <Labra> zaim, [IPcaller] is labra
18:02:07 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:02:11 <Labra> zakim, [IPcaller] is labra
18:02:11 <Zakim> +labra; got it
18:02:44 <TallTed> Arnaud1 - you may want to nick-shift, to make the minutes happier
18:03:23 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
18:03:23 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
18:03:49 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:03:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see kcoyle, pfps, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, TallTed, michel, aryman, labra
18:04:56 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:05:46 <Zakim> + +30694579aaaa
18:06:00 <Dimitris> zakim, 30694579aaaa is me
18:06:00 <Zakim> sorry, Dimitris, I do not recognize a party named '30694579aaaa'
18:06:27 <Arnaud> zakim, aaaa is Dimitris
18:06:27 <Zakim> +Dimitris; got it
18:06:55 <Arnaud> scribe: Dimitris
18:06:59 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:07:01 <Dimitris> Arnaud: Let's start
18:07:07 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.04.23
18:07:11 <pfps> topic: Admin
18:07:31 <Dimitris> .. approval of minutes from last week
18:07:37 <pfps> Minutes look fine to me  :-)
18:07:40 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 16 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:50 <Arnaud> APPROVED: Approve minutes of the 16 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:52 <Dimitris> -- minutes approved
18:08:17 <cygri> cygri has joined #shapes
18:08:49 <cygri> zakim, code?
<Dimitris> topic: User Stories
18:08:49 <Zakim> the conference code is 742737 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), cygri
18:09:00 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:09:30 <Dimitris> Arnaud: we have one user story not approved, Arthur any progress?
18:10:02 <kcoyle> +q
18:10:10 <pfps> Is this S40 or some requirement?
18:10:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:10:20 <Arnaud> S40
18:10:27 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S40_Describing_Inline_Content_versus_References
18:10:33 <hknublau> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:10:33 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
18:10:36 <Arnaud> S40 Describing Inline Content versus References
18:10:39 <Dimitris> aryman: Peter is correct, this user story does not necessarily lead to validation but that's not the whole meaning of Shapes
18:10:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:10:47 <pfps> q+
18:10:49 <cygri> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:10:49 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
18:11:15 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:11:37 <pfps> Is this a requirement or a user story??
18:11:40 <Dimitris> kcoyle: this is definitely a requirement we have in DC
18:12:16 <Dimitris> ... we need to know if the value exists of we need to dereference
18:12:25 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:12:29 <Dimitris> ... it is important for us to have this
18:13:14 <aryman> q+
18:13:17 <Dimitris> pfps: My concerns have been validated, is confusing if this is a requirement or a user story.
18:13:20 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:13:58 <Dimitris> aryman: Indeed parts are worded as requirement, I can adjust to a user story
18:15:18 <Dimitris> Arnaud: update the story with new text and we can vote for approval
18:16:39 <Dimitris> pfps: take what Karen wrote and put it in front
18:18:33 <Dimitris> Arnaud: Anything the UCR editors want to add?
18:18:35 <pfps> As far as I know, the editors' job is to edit the Editor's Draft.
18:19:06 <Dimitris> ... you are free to keep working on the document
18:19:39 <Dimitris> ... when you feel you have an improvement we can re-publish
<Dimitris> topic: Requirements
18:20:36 <Arnaud> ISSUE-46?
18:20:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- Support for RDF Collections? -- raised
18:20:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/46
18:20:44 <Dimitris> ... any gaps you find in the document bring them to the working group
18:21:12 <cygri> q+
18:21:17 <Arnaud> ack cygri
18:22:39 <Dimitris> cygri: one of the stories that mention rdf lists and I was planning to go through the requirements and see if this is captured. I am willing to propose requirements to capture RDF collections
18:22:49 <pfps> Fine by me to include requirements for RDF collections/lists
18:22:59 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-46: Support for RDF Collections?
18:23:03 <cygri> +1
18:23:05 <Labra> +1
18:23:07 <TallTed> +1
18:23:08 <kcoyle> +1
18:23:08 <pfps> +1
18:23:09 <Dimitris> +1
18:23:20 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:23:22 <aryman> +1
18:23:29 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-46: Support for RDF Collections?
18:23:57 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to add requirement(s) for RDF collections to address ISSUE-4
18:23:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - Add requirement(s) for rdf collections to address issue-4 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2015-04-30].
18:25:08 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 per Jose's suggestion to add a requirement as detailed in email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0218.html
18:25:14 <pfps> +1
18:25:15 <Labra> +1
18:25:16 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:25:21 <TallTed> issue-35?
18:25:21 <trackbot> issue-35 -- Language-tags -- open
18:25:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/35
18:25:33 <Dimitris> +1
18:25:45 <TallTed> +1
18:25:50 <Labra> +q to ask who is going to add the requirement
18:25:53 <aryman> +1
18:25:58 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:25:58 <Zakim> Labra, you wanted to ask who is going to add the requirement
18:26:26 <Dimitris> labra: who is going to split the requirement? I am willing to do this
18:26:30 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-35 per Jose's suggestion to add a requirement as detailed in email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0218.html
18:26:33 <michel> +1
18:27:07 <Dimitris> Arnaud: Jose will take the action item to do this
18:27:39 <aryman> q+
18:27:43 <pfps> No Eric and nothing added to the requirement on the wiki page
18:28:39 <Dimitris> Arnaud: closed shapes  requirement is not approved yet
18:29:10 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:29:40 <Arnaud>  2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes
18:30:02 <Dimitris> aryman: Server should not reject unrecognised content. It should identify it.
18:30:08 <pfps> I'm still waiting for a workable specification of what closed shapes might mean.
18:31:15 <Dimitris> TallTed: I will approve what is currently stated in the requirement it needs rewording
18:31:25 <aryman> q+
18:31:31 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:32:02 <pfps> http://www.w3.org/2015/ShExpressivity#coverageEtc is very tied to a particular version of ShEx
18:32:41 <SimonSteyskal> i meant regarding the general idea of closed shapes
18:33:00 <Arnaud> ACTION: ericP update description of 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes to address concerns expressed to date
18:33:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Update description of 2.6.11 expressivity: closed shapes to address concerns expressed to date [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2015-04-30].
18:33:03 <cygri> Arnaud, did we skip another raised issue, #45?
<Dimitris> Arnaud: no, I deferred it to the SHACL section of the agenda, which is now
<Dimitris> topic: SHACL Spec
18:33:06 <TallTed> s/ I will approve what is currently stated in the requirement it needs rewording/I approve of the concept of the requirement, but I cannot approve as currently worded/

18:34:18 <Arnaud> ISSUE-45?
18:34:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language -- raised
18:34:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/45
18:34:24 <Dimitris> Arnaud: we leave this open for now until Erik works on it
18:34:37 <aryman> q+
18:35:00 <Dimitris> ... There was a lot of discussion even for what built-in means
18:35:02 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:35:04 <pfps> I'm in favour of opening ISSUE-45
18:35:40 <aryman> +1 for opening ISSUE-45
18:35:45 <Dimitris> ... should we open this? maybe people want to clarify the description
18:35:51 <cygri> ISSUE-45?
18:35:51 <trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language -- raised
18:35:51 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/45
18:36:16 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-45,  Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language
18:36:20 <cygri> +1
18:36:20 <pfps> +1
18:36:24 <Labra> 0
18:36:25 <TallTed> +1
18:36:29 <hknublau> +1
18:36:29 <aryman> +1
18:36:30 <Dimitris> +1
18:36:42 <kcoyle> +1
18:36:49 <michel> +1
18:36:56 <SimonSteyskal> 0
18:37:09 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-45,  Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language
18:37:38 <Dimitris> Arnaud: we have a long list of open issues
18:38:13 <Arnaud> ISSUE-30?
18:38:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Are shapes and data in the same graph? -- open
18:38:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/30
18:38:17 <Dimitris> ... I suggest we talk about ISSUE-30
18:38:28 <pfps> q+
18:39:04 <Dimitris> cygri: this is one of the differences between the various proposals. This is a yes / no option
18:40:00 <Dimitris> ... option 1: data and shapes are in the same graph
18:40:19 <Dimitris> ... option 2: are in the same dataset but in different graphs
18:40:35 <Dimitris> ... option 3: the don't need to be in the same system
18:41:26 <Dimitris> Arnaud: in the 3rd option the spec will be silent on this?
18:41:29 <aryman> q+
18:42:09 <pfps> As far as I can see, data and shapes in the same graph rules out quite a number of use cases, unless SHACL has to construct union graphs whenever the data and the shapes come from different sources.
18:42:11 <Dimitris> cygri: we coudn't assume they are in the same dataset
18:42:14 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:42:49 <Dimitris> pfps: option 1 is impossible for most use cases. This rules-out option 2 as well. The only viable option is option 3
18:43:16 <Dimitris> ... we can either require to be different or be agnostic and I think being agnostic is better
18:43:54 <Dimitris> cygri: why is option 2 ruled out?
18:44:29 <Dimitris> pfps: when I use an external dataset I would have to copy the whole dataset
18:44:44 <Dimitris> ... for example I would have to copy the whole DBpedia
18:45:13 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:45:33 <Dimitris> Aryman: option 1 is unworkable
18:45:42 <Zakim> -michel
18:46:19 <hknublau> +q
18:46:24 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:46:41 <Dimitris> *I missed arthurs last comment*
18:46:54 <Dimitris> hknublau: option 2 is working
18:47:03 <Dimitris> +q
18:47:25 <aryman> my comment is that this is a language binding issue
18:47:31 <Dimitris> hknublau: it can use a different strategy in other cases
18:47:48 <aryman> the question is "What data does the SHACL engine has access to?"
18:48:01 <Dimitris> ... we just need to create a graph interface and it is implementable
18:48:24 <aryman> The SHACL engine has access to the graph being validated, and the definition of the Shape
18:48:25 <Dimitris> ... engines can optimize
18:48:32 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
18:50:07 <Dimitris> dimitris: I am option 3, except ShEx shapes everything is implementable
18:50:19 <Dimitris> and for ShEx shapes it depends on the definition details
18:50:38 <Labra> +q
18:50:47 <Dimitris> Arnaud: which option do you prefer or are you neutral
18:51:04 <aryman> q+
18:51:21 <Dimitris> cygri: The current spec uses option 2. Option 3 is easier to specify in the document
18:51:49 <Dimitris> ... option 2 gives you a lot of power in writing templates
18:51:56 <pfps> q+
18:51:57 <Dimitris> ... which pretty nice
18:52:10 <Dimitris> ... option 3 limits what you can do in templates
18:52:14 <Dimitris> +q
18:52:31 <Dimitris> ... the template would not have flexibility to check the graph
18:52:54 <Dimitris> ... and get all information needed
18:53:10 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:53:10 <pfps> Option 2 requires support, option 3 doesn't, which is one reason that I prefer option 3
18:53:17 <Dimitris> ... it is difficult to go into details now
18:53:31 <Dimitris> labra: I am in favour of option 3
18:54:14 <Dimitris> ... my implementation of ShEx supports SPARQL endpoints and it is better to have the freedom
18:54:16 <cygri> Option 2 and 3 are equally agnostic.
18:54:19 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:54:25 <pfps> q-
18:55:01 <Dimitris> aryman: extension like SPARQL are not RDF
18:55:10 <Dimitris> ... and cannot be queried
18:56:43 <Dimitris> cygri: the language specific extension would be able to query the shapes
18:58:44 <Dimitris> aryman: for instance javascript would we have predefined (magic) variables that we have to rely on?
18:58:55 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
18:58:57 <Dimitris> magic variables, triple or functions
18:58:59 <cygri> q+
18:59:52 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:00:27 <Dimitris> dimitris: templates can be defined depending on the local setup and could be able to read the shapes or the data graph
19:00:43 <Dimitris> cygri:templates should be global and exchangable
19:01:06 <aryman> q+
19:01:51 <Dimitris> ... Arthur, this is SPARQL specific, even we we say something for SPARQL we might define something completely different for javascript
19:01:59 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:02:42 <Dimitris> aryman: the issue should be how do you the context to the extension mechanism
<Dimitris> ... and SPARQL may not be the only language that can use to define extensions
19:02:53 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-30 making SHACL agnostic on this point
19:03:11 <Dimitris> ... and we shoudn't rely on SPARQL only
19:03:17 <SimonSteyskal> 0
19:03:18 <Labra> +1
19:03:18 <pfps> +1
19:03:22 <Dimitris> +1
19:03:25 <kcoyle> +1
19:03:29 <aryman> +1
19:03:31 <TallTed> +1
19:03:31 <hknublau> -1 I don’t see how this could work
19:04:28 <pfps> q+
19:04:38 <Dimitris> hknublau: this leave the topic undefined. How can we access the shapes graph?
19:04:40 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:04:59 <Dimitris> pfps: I am confused on your proposal
19:05:07 <cygri> q+
19:05:28 <Arnaud> ack cygri
19:05:29 <Dimitris> arnaud: no, shacl is agnostic on the shapes and data graph
19:06:04 <pfps> The proposal is then to make SHACL admit the possibility that the data graph and the shape graph are completely separate, i.e., queries against the data graph might not have any access to the shape graph.
19:06:04 <TallTed> draft PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-30 making SHACL agnostic as to whether ShapeGraph is contained within Target DataSet -- permitting either.  We will later determine how to specify which is the current case, and how mechanisms work with the two...
19:06:25 <Dimitris> ... I tried to capture what people said which is option 3
19:06:41 <aryman> q+
19:06:42 <pfps> I like Ted's restatement
19:07:03 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:07:35 <Dimitris> aryman: draft proposal: Specify how invocation parameters and context variable are made available to custom constraints written in SPARQL, or other languages
19:07:39 <cygri> draft PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-30 and instead raise a new one: Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how?
19:08:13 <hknublau> +1 to cygri, or just rename the current issue
19:08:19 <pfps> Ted's draft proposal doesn't say anything about SPARQL, so I don't see why it needs this kind of change
19:09:01 <pfps> s/this/Arthur's/
19:09:07 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-30 making SHACL agnostic as to whether ShapeGraph is contained within Target DataSet -- permitting either.  We will later determine how to specify which is the current case, and how extension mechanisms work with the two
19:09:20 <cygri> -1
19:10:05 <hknublau> +q
19:10:35 <Dimitris> cygri: this implies that the extension mechanisms are not part of SHACL
19:10:36 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:10:38 <TallTed> draft PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-30 making SHACL agnostic as to whether ShapeGraph is contained within Target DataSet -- permitting either.   We will later determine how to specify whether the current ShapeGraph is within DataSet, and thus how SHACL and any extension mechanism(s) can act on that specification.
19:10:47 <pfps> -1 to Arnaud's proposal
19:11:16 <Dimitris> hknublau: In my proposal I define the function hasShape() which is independent
19:12:36 <pfps> In my view a pure Option 3 is workable, and proposals that presuppose a mechanism to access the shapes from the data graph do not ft into Option 3
19:13:26 <Dimitris> cygri: we could close ISSUE-30 and raise an issue with the other question
19:13:38 <pfps> richard: you could just enter the  new issue right now, so that we can see what it would look like
19:13:39 <Dimitris> I also think option 3 is workable
19:13:40 <Arnaud> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-30 as is/unanswered
19:13:47 <hknublau> @pfps Option 3 is throwing away too much useful stuff, like RDFS not be able to query classes
19:13:48 <aryman> +1
19:13:54 <TallTed> +1
19:13:57 <SimonSteyskal> +1
19:13:58 <kcoyle> +1
19:14:00 <cygri> +0.1
19:14:04 <Labra> +1
19:14:05 <hknublau> +1
19:14:15 <Dimitris> 0-
19:14:30 <cygri> I plan to immediately raise a new issue: “Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how?”
19:14:55 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-30 as is/unanswered
19:15:24 <Dimitris> cygri: I am not interested in javascript
19:15:40 <Dimitris> ... for the high level language it is not meaningful to ask this
19:16:09 <Dimitris> tallted: if we ask this for SPARQL only people might misinterpret
19:16:25 <cygri> Ted, raise your own bloody issue ;-)
19:17:14 <Dimitris> arnaud: Ted, if you don;t like this you can object to opening this
19:17:41 <Arnaud> ISSUE-27?
19:17:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? -- open
19:17:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/27
19:17:43 <kcoyle> yep
19:18:45 <aryman> q+
19:18:49 <Dimitris> arnaud: are we free to mix extensions with the high level vocabulary?
19:18:51 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:19:24 <Dimitris> aryman: I think that yes we want to be able to define template used in a similar manner as the high level languges
19:20:11 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-27 by saying yes: extension constraints can be used in the high-level language
19:20:16 <pfps> +1
19:20:17 <hknublau> +1
19:20:23 <TallTed> +1
19:20:25 <Dimitris> +1
19:20:29 <SimonSteyskal> +1
19:20:31 <kcoyle> +1
19:20:31 <Labra> 0
19:20:47 <cygri> +1
19:20:58 <pfps> How do closed issues link back to resolutions?
19:21:28 <aryman> +1
19:21:31 <pfps> OK, it's all manual
19:21:46 <pfps> Boo to tracker, then
19:21:48 <Dimitris> arnuad: I manually close the issues with links to resolutions
19:21:49 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-27 by saying yes: extension constraints can be used in the high-level language
19:22:08 <Arnaud> ISSUE-23?
19:22:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- Shapes, classes and punning -- open
19:22:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:23:06 <Dimitris> arnaud: in the F2F meeting we discussed about using something like punning
19:23:08 <pfps> q+
19:23:16 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:23:41 <Dimitris> pfps: Not so easy now. I am not sure if punning is going to help any more
19:24:01 <aryman> q+
19:24:24 <Dimitris> ... in rdf we cannot say that shapes cannot be classes, we can just add a type arc
19:24:31 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:24:33 <Dimitris> ... the question is if it has a special meening
19:24:54 <Dimitris> aryman: we can't prevent people from stating a shape is a class
19:25:12 <pfps> To me the issue boils down to whether being a class is somehow special for SHACL shapes (or other SHACL stuff)
19:25:13 <cygri> the question is: do we want to encourage it.
19:26:01 <Dimitris> arnaud: Holger's initial proposal  relied on the type arc
19:26:16 <pfps> Yes, whether rdf:type from a node to a shape is special to SHACL is part of this issue.
19:27:10 <pfps> The class-related link rdfs:subClassOf is also involved here.
19:27:37 <Dimitris> cygri: my view hasn't changed much. It is correct to say that we cannot prevent people to use shapes as classes
19:28:24 <Dimitris> ... Should the spec take a stand on this? should we consider this as a valid way to do this
19:28:27 <pfps> To me, it's not whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.  It is whether there are any SHACL consequences.
19:29:00 <Dimitris> ... I would like us to enable us to be able to have a single resource for a class and a shape
19:29:13 <hknublau> +q
19:29:14 <TallTed> q+
19:29:21 <pfps> q+
19:29:23 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:29:28 <pfps> q-
19:29:46 <Dimitris> hknublau: I would find it more productive to look at specific proposals
19:30:11 <Dimitris> .. what we discuss now looks unspecific
19:30:17 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
19:30:41 <Dimitris> TallTed: similar feeling. We have a huge pile of questions here
19:31:08 <Dimitris> ... it is difficult to make a way.
19:31:26 <Dimitris> ... I like well defined classes
19:32:33 <Dimitris> arnaud: I encourage people to make proposals, we can still leave this issue as umbrella for this question
19:32:54 <Zakim> -cygri
19:32:55 <Zakim> -aryman
19:32:55 <Zakim> -kcoyle
19:32:57 <Zakim> -Dimitris
19:32:57 <Zakim> -hknublau
19:32:58 <TallTed> s/I like well defined classes/well-defined classes could be used easily as shapes; poorly defined classes, not so much/
19:32:58 <Zakim> -pfps
19:32:58 <Zakim> -Arnaud
19:32:59 <Zakim> -labra
19:33:04 <Arnaud> regrets: ericP
19:33:08 <Dimitris> Dimitris has left #shapes
19:33:09 <Zakim> -TallTed
19:33:17 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:33:17 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:33:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been kcoyle, pfps, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, TallTed, michel, aryman, labra, +30694579aaaa, Dimitris, hknublau, cygri
<Dimitris> present: kcoyle, pfps, Arnaud, SimonSteyskal, TallTed, michel, aryman, labra, Dimitris, hknublau, cygri
19:33:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:33:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:33:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:33:26 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-shapes-actions.rdf :
19:33:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: cygri to add requirement(s) for RDF collections to address ISSUE-4 [1]
19:33:26 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-shapes-irc#T18-23-57
19:33:26 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ericP update description of 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes to address concerns expressed to date [2]
19:33:26 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-shapes-irc#T18-33-00