17:58:56 RRSAgent has joined #shapes 17:58:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/30-shapes-irc 17:58:58 RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes 17:58:58 Zakim has joined #shapes 17:59:00 Zakim, this will be SHAPES 17:59:00 ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute 17:59:01 Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference 17:59:01 Date: 30 April 2015 17:59:03 DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has now started 17:59:11 + +33.9.53.56.aaaa 17:59:41 +michel 18:00:32 +kcoyle 18:00:40 +ericP 18:00:47 +Arnaud 18:00:49 +[IPcaller] 18:00:57 +iovka 18:01:01 zakim, [IPCaller] is labra 18:01:01 +labra; got it 18:01:35 +[IPcaller] 18:01:41 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 18:01:41 +cygri; got it 18:01:51 zakim, mute me 18:01:51 cygri should now be muted 18:02:02 zakim, who's on the phone? 18:02:02 On the phone I see +33.9.53.56.aaaa, michel, kcoyle, ericP, Arnaud, labra, cygri (muted) 18:02:38 zakim, aaaa is iovka 18:02:38 +iovka; got it 18:02:45 +pfps 18:03:18 pfps has joined #shapes 18:04:05 scribenick: iovka 18:04:08 chair: Arnaud 18:04:16 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.04.30 18:05:20 topic: Admin 18:05:38 PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 23 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-shapes-minutes.html 18:05:52 minutes look fine now 18:06:11 none 18:06:18 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 23 April Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/23-shapes-minutes.html 18:06:44 +OpenLink_Software 18:06:50 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 18:06:50 +TallTed; got it 18:06:52 next week Arnaud will be absent 18:06:54 Zakim, mute me 18:06:54 TallTed should now be muted 18:07:17 maybe folks could present their proposals, without other agenda items 18:07:33 Arnaud: who wants to chair next week meeting ? 18:07:41 I have no problems with Eric as chair 18:07:52 eric is ok by me 18:07:53 Arnaud: Eric chair ? 18:08:22 Arnaud: it would infortunate to skip the meeting, given the work to be done 18:08:50 Teleconf 2015.05.07 chaired by Eric 18:08:52 Eric: accepts 18:09:27 ack me 18:09:31 topic:Tracking of actions & issues 18:09:33 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/open 18:10:02 Arnaud: we should be able to close this one 18:10:16 zakim, mute me 18:10:16 cygri should now be muted 18:10:21 zakim, who is talking? 18:10:31 pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: kcoyle (44%), Arnaud (95%) 18:10:54 topic: User stories 18:11:32 q+ 18:11:35 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S40_Describing_Inline_Content_versus_References 18:11:42 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References 18:11:46 ack pfps 18:11:47 Arnaud: the description of S40 was changed, can we approve it like this ? 18:12:36 pfps: fine with paragraph by Karen Coyle, not with paragraph by Arthur Ryman 18:12:44 Arnaud: Arthur is not here, remove his description ? 18:13:18 pfps: approve Karen's paragraph as S40 ? 18:13:22 PROPOSED: Approve Karen's description as S40 18:13:27 +1 18:13:27 +1 18:13:40 +1 18:13:42 +1 18:13:42 +1 18:13:44 +1 18:13:53 +1 18:14:19 RESOLVED: Approve Karen's description as S40 18:14:41 q+ 18:14:49 ack pfps 18:15:11 pfps: S8 is suggested 18:15:32 q- 18:15:48 Arnaud: not enough supporters 18:16:21 topic: Requirements 18:17:09 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes 18:17:09 Arnaud: are we ok with this requirement ? 18:17:18 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes 18:17:25 pfps: as a requirement we do not know what it is 18:17:53 pfps: this is not xml schema, we can have disjunction and negation; we are making a requirement we do not want how to satisfy 18:18:17 Arnaud: ericP, what do you think ? 18:18:29 Arnaud: in xml schema, by default functions are closed 18:18:35 +q 18:18:39 s/functions/types 18:18:56 ack kcoyle 18:19:08 Karen: we do not need a solution in order to have a requirement 18:19:39 +q agree on requirement gathering 18:20:13 ericP: ciritical functionality. pfps, do you mean you do not know how to satisfy it, or you do not know how people satisfy it ? 18:20:24 ericP: there are lots of options 18:20:28 q+ 18:20:35 queue=michel,cygri 18:20:40 ericP: there might be various strategies to meet this use case 18:20:42 ack michel 18:20:43 q+ 18:20:53 michel: pretty crear requirement 18:21:02 with apologies for not answering the email more quickly -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0318.html 18:21:05 ack cygri 18:21:11 michel: I wonder whether there should be objection aginst this 18:21:29 hknublau has joined #shapes 18:21:44 cygri: one use case previously mentioned was mispelled properties 18:22:01 q+ 18:22:11 cygri: in open shapes, this error won't be detected 18:22:30 cygri: in closed shapes, it can be detected, because extra triple 18:22:58 cygri: open shapes would be the default behaviour 18:23:20 +[IPcaller] 18:23:22 cygri: closed shapes for detecting mispelling is questionable 18:23:35 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 18:23:35 +hknublau; got it 18:23:41 +1 to richard's comment that closed shapes do not address misspelling 18:23:53 cygri: 2nd point, the name 'closed shape' is misleading 18:25:12 cygri: there are different situations: maybe data is missing, maybe there is extra data, maybe both 18:25:37 cygri: both are interesting 18:26:18 cygri: people talk of this requirement is as buisness requirement, need to reject extra triples 18:26:33 cygri: this is not what shacl should be for 18:26:44 the policy questions aren't part of the requirement 18:27:15 the requirement is about knowing whether the dataset being evaluated extends beyond the shape 18:27:17 ack pfps 18:27:23 the first aspect is to detect. the second is to deal with the policy for it 18:27:29 zakim, mute me 18:27:29 cygri should now be muted 18:27:33 most of the other requirements are about detecting whether the dataset fits within the shape. 18:27:42 pfps: I am very negative againts this requirement, but am not going to vote against this 18:27:52 q+ 18:27:59 ack TallTed 18:27:59 ack me 18:28:27 TallTed: frustrated by cygri's discussions on things that are not in the document 18:29:54 ack michel 18:29:59 TallTed: this requirement is whether data is beyound shape, the remaining is whenther data is within shape 18:30:34 michel: is every approved requirement to be in the standard ? 18:31:02 Arnaud: it is impossible to satisfy all the requirements. We must try to address 18:31:17 Arnaud: at some point we must make a decision whether addressing or not 18:31:29 TallTed: addressing is not satisfying 18:31:36 s/it is impossible/it may be impossible/ 18:31:46 PROPOSED: Approve 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes 18:31:57 +1 18:31:59 +1 18:31:59 +1 18:32:00 +1 18:32:00 +1 18:32:03 +0 18:32:06 +1 18:32:42 pfps: 0 18:32:43 pfps: +0 18:32:49 RESOLVED: Approve 2.6.11 Expressivity: Closed Shapes https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes 18:33:23 Arnaud: this was the last pending requirement 18:33:36 Arnaud: maybe other requirements come, but now we can concentrate on the solution 18:33:39 +q 18:33:41 I have an action to raise a new requirement 18:34:08 Arnaud: editors should produce updated documents taking into account the decisions we take. 18:34:08 ack kcoyle 18:34:29 Karen: if we want to add a new requirement, do we bring it for a vote ? 18:34:54 Arnaud: yes 18:35:25 Arnaud: I'm not going to put this on the agenda any more. 18:35:46 topic: SHACL spec 18:36:55 Arnaud: 2 weeks ago we had a resolution that editors should put their proposal in decent shape, otherwise they will be dopped 18:37:21 Arnaud: how many proposals do we have ? 3 ? 18:37:52 Arnaud: let's give few minutes to the editors so that they present where they are 18:37:54 -> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ semantics doc 18:38:10 -> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/ primer 18:38:18 ericP: this is semantics, and the primer 18:38:35 ericP: I modified the primer to address issues from Karen and Peter 18:38:52 ericP: semantics was modified mainly by iovka 18:39:27 q+ 18:39:29 ericP: the challange from Peter was to propose a sound semantics, that's mostly we have here 18:39:44 ack cygri 18:39:52 Arnaud: this is in a good shape, we can keep it. What others think about it ? 18:40:12 cygri: these 2 proposals, do they address only the high-level language, or also the extensions ? 18:40:29 ericP: extensions is the main piece we didn't get to 18:40:55 ericP: I think we can meet the requirements having the sparql semantics being an extension, having extension mechanism attached to a shape 18:41:16 Is this going to be like the extension mechanism in the Shape Expressions member submission? 18:41:22 ericP: while validating a shape, you can invoke extension mechanisms 18:42:10 Arnaud: it's ok. we said decent shape, not complete 18:42:43 ?? : what are we talking when we say ShEx ? 18:43:00 +q 18:43:05 s/??/Arnaud/ 18:43:10 +q to say that my plan is to update my implementation to comply to that spec 18:43:35 ack iovka 18:44:02 ack Labra 18:44:02 Labra, you wanted to say that my plan is to update my implementation to comply to that spec 18:44:19 iovka: we were successful in unifying the three points that pfps were different in the ShEx proposals 18:44:41 jose: my plan is to adapt my implementation 18:45:05 Arnaud: we have convergence, this is a good thin 18:45:16 Arnaud: Holger, something about your draft ? 18:45:33 Holger: there was nothing to do, it was already implemented 18:45:50 Holger: it meets all the requirements, it's ready to be considered 18:45:59 +q 18:46:00 Arnaud : peter's proposal ? 18:46:27 pfps: by document is missing english reperting erros, this is neither in the new shex 18:46:48 pfps: the philosophy is met 18:47:20 Arnaud: how should we proceed ? see how the proposals evolve ? pfps, what do you suggest ? 18:47:42 pfps: we already know that one of the proposals is not complete 18:48:12 pfps: Holger's proposal is compllete, even though it has some magic into it 18:48:19 ack michel 18:48:31 pfps: we do not believe promises 18:49:04 michel: how are we going to evaluate proposals ? 18:49:06 q+ 18:49:30 Arnaud: good question, I do not pretend to have the answer 18:49:46 Arnaud: one option is to have a vote which one of the 3 we are starting with 18:50:03 Arnaud: I do not think we have a consensus there 18:50:32 Well, I would prefer something like Stardog ICV over my proposal, but that didn't get any support in the WG 18:50:41 Arnaud: this would be a starting point, any document can be modified, 18:51:32 ack pfps 18:51:44 Arnaud: we could also give to people 2 more days to put everything together, then 2 weeks people to review the proposals 18:52:08 pfps: the big point is that there are 2 very very different technological bases 18:52:23 pfps: impossible to proceed 18:52:56 pfps: promises for things yet to come, I am very frustrated 18:53:14 pfps: we cannot decide on things that are to come 18:53:36 +q 18:53:42 pfps: a way forward would be to have each of the proposals evaluated by a different party 18:53:58 Arnaud: who do you ask to review ? 18:54:14 ack kcoyle 18:54:18 pfps: sb who cares enough in the cares of doing a good job, and also the technical background 18:54:46 Karen: I would like to see each of these proposals trying to solve the same problems, the same use cases 18:54:54 Arnaud: I like that 18:55:03 who is going to choose the use cases? 18:55:18 q= 18:55:21 q+ 18:55:22 +q 18:55:29 q- 18:55:41 there are a fair number of these already in the user stories wiki page 18:55:58 Arnaud: how do we chose the use cases ? everybody proposes one use case ? 18:56:14 ack cygri 18:56:17 Karen: nice if we had instanc data to test on 18:56:51 cygri: sounds good at first, but I'm a bit spectical 18:58:13 cygri: if we fix user stories, people could interprete the use cases diffeently, the results would not be comparable 18:58:36 +q to ask why don't we start by the shacl language operators and some test cases 18:58:38 cygri: another way is to have data and well defined requriements, but it would take too much time 18:58:57 q+ 18:59:17 Arnaud: I agree with cygri's concern. But it's still better than just voting w/o enough information 18:59:28 ack Labra 18:59:28 Labra, you wanted to ask why don't we start by the shacl language operators and some test cases 18:59:59 jose: we can start with the different language operators. 19:00:15 jose: the languages are not so different, they have the same language features 19:00:29 ack TallTed 19:00:33 jose: maybe having an agreement on the language features 19:01:12 TallTed: one proposal is fairly complete, but has some magic. this is an issue to be raised 19:01:36 TallTed: another has some significant gaps 19:01:47 ericP: what are the significant gaps ? 19:02:03 q+ 19:02:15 q+ 19:02:18 There is no treatment of an extension mechanism in http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ 19:02:21 TallTed: we do not have yet two proposals to put side by side, both have gaps, this is a reason to keep both 19:02:26 Arnaud: we have 3, not 2 19:03:07 Arnaud: I leave it to the proponents to take the challenge, picking the use cases, and document these 19:03:43 ack michel 19:03:47 Arnaud: web page, where everybody gives a solution for some use case, and the others can show their solution 19:03:59 michel: what metric to use to compare the solutions ? 19:04:43 Arnaud: the menric is 1. do you address all the requirements, which ones you don't ? 19:05:09 ack cygri 19:05:09 michel: list of requirements, check boxes ? 19:05:19 pointers to sections 19:05:23 Arnaud: the editors should document the limits of their poposals 19:05:48 cygri: let's look back to the charter, section 4, deliverables 19:06:13 ... see the non optional things there 19:06:23 gotta run. excited to see progress on clear enumeration of coverage of approved/non-approved requirements 19:06:31 -michel 19:06:35 ... the ShEx proposal does not address a signficant part, because does not propose an extensibility mechnism 19:09:03 STRAWPOLL: use as a starting point a) Peter's proposal, 2) Holger's proposal, 3) Eric's proposal 19:09:44 It's a bit premature to make -1 be "can't live with it" 19:09:47 too many people are missing today 19:10:16 strawpoll is about general feeling. it's not a binding vote in any way. 19:10:20 a) +0 b) +.5 c) +.5 19:10:26 a) +0.5 b) +0.8 c) -0.8 19:10:41 a) +1 b) 0 c) -1 19:10:53 a) +0.5 b) +0.8 c) -0.5 19:10:57 a) 0 b) +1 c) -1 (surprise!) 19:11:18 a) -1 b) -.8 c) +1 19:11:37 a) -1 b) -0.5 c) +1 19:11:50 The problem with c) is that it addresses only a part of the charter. Proposals a) and b) are complete. 19:12:40 Arnaud: the group may stick with one proposal, and people unhappy can continue their effort independently 19:13:13 Arnaud: unless we can merge the different propsals, we need to take a winner and continue this way 19:13:20 topit: issues 19:13:34 ISSUE-36: Naming of value type facet https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/36 19:13:34 Notes added to ISSUE-36 Naming of value type facet. 19:14:05 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names 19:14:56 Holger: no majority. the proposition was to rename value type to type 19:15:09 issue-36: polling on wiki page - https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names#Value_Type 19:15:09 Notes added to issue-36 Naming of value type facet. 19:15:31 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-36 by calling value type facet "type" 19:16:33 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names#Value_Type 19:16:45 I'm inclined to sh:valueType 19:16:48 +1 19:16:57 +1 19:17:43 -1 19:17:53 -1 19:18:18 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-36 by calling value type facet "sh:valueType" 19:18:29 +1 19:18:31 +1 19:18:33 +1 19:18:37 0 19:18:43 -1 19:18:45 0 19:19:19 sh:referencedRDFType? 19:20:36 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-36 by calling value type facet "sh:valueType" and revert resolution of ISSUE-39 to use "sh:valueShape" rather than "sh:shape" 19:20:44 yep 19:20:55 +1 19:21:02 0 19:21:08 0 19:21:11 0 19:21:13 +1 19:21:14 cygri: having the word "value" added to all, or to none of the property names, but not mixing 19:21:21 q+ to sh:referencedRDFType? 19:21:30 ack ericP 19:21:30 ericP, you wanted to sh:referencedRDFType? 19:23:16 0 19:23:23 I am deeply uninterested in picky details of syntax, particularly determining piecemeal which names are used for particular constructs. 19:23:37 people discussing on how to call it 19:23:44 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-36 by calling value type facet "sh:valueType" and revert resolution of ISSUE-39 to use "sh:valueShape" rather than "sh:shape" 19:23:51 Arnaud: we can live it, I'm going to close it 19:24:06 we might unify these into collections of terms and thus one propsal/resolution? 19:24:19 s/live it/live with it/ 19:24:21 issue-23? 19:24:21 issue-23 -- Shapes, classes and punning -- open 19:24:21 http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23 19:24:59 +q 19:25:06 ack hknublau 19:25:10 q+ 19:25:29 Holger: accept that there are 2 different view points 19:25:55 Holger: we should be able to support both, with or without interaction with classes 19:26:25 ... my proposal is to keep classes and shapes separate 19:27:16 Arnaud: I do not want to re-open the question whether shapes are classes 19:27:18 q+ to suggest shapeScope (rather than classScope) as inverse of classShape 19:27:46 ack pfps 19:27:51 ... how do we accomodate these two viewpoints 19:28:39 +q 19:28:46 pfps: shapes as classes is bad, people would expect too much of it, I prefer a solution where we do not permit associatin clasess and shapes 19:30:05 TallTed and pfps discuss about what punning is 19:30:31 There is a specific and a general sense of punning here 19:30:41 ack TallTed[ 19:30:47 ack TallTed 19:30:47 TallTed, you wanted to suggest shapeScope (rather than classScope) as inverse of classShape 19:30:49 TallTed: punning is not in any spec, it's a functionality, I don't think we shoud document it in a spec 19:30:52 ack hknublau 19:31:45 -labra 19:31:58 I don't see Holger's solution as much of a compromise 19:32:23 -hknublau 19:32:24 -pfps 19:32:25 -cygri 19:32:25 -kcoyle 19:32:27 -Arnaud 19:32:29 -iovka 19:32:34 trackbot, end meeting 19:32:34 Zakim, list attendees 19:32:34 As of this point the attendees have been +33.9.53.56.aaaa, michel, kcoyle, ericP, Arnaud, labra, cygri, iovka, pfps, TallTed, hknublau present: michel, kcoyle, ericP, Arnaud, labra, cygri, iovka, pfps, TallTed, hknublau regrets: aryman, SimonSteyskal, Dimitris 19:32:36 -ericP 19:32:36 DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended 19:32:36 Attendees were +33.9.53.56.aaaa, michel, kcoyle, ericP, Arnaud, labra, cygri, iovka, pfps, TallTed, hknublau 19:32:42 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 19:32:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/30-shapes-minutes.html trackbot 19:32:43 RRSAgent, bye 19:32:43 I see no action items