18:01:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:01:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/07-shapes-irc
18:01:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:01:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:01:36 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start now
18:01:37 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:01:37 <trackbot> Date: 07 May 2015
18:01:40 <BartvanLeeuwen> Zakim, ??p5 is me
18:01:41 <Zakim> I already had ??P5 as ??P5, BartvanLeeuwen
18:01:50 <BartvanLeeuwen> q-
18:01:58 <BartvanLeeuwen> ack ??p5
18:02:44 <ericP> Zakim, ??p5 is BartvanLeeuwen
18:02:44 <Zakim> I already had ??P5 as ??P5, ericP
18:02:46 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:02:48 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
18:02:48 <Zakim> I notice DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has restarted
18:02:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps, [IPcaller], TallTed, ericP, aryman, kcoyle, ??P5
18:02:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see Dimitris, RRSAgent, kcoyle, Zakim, pfps, hsolbrig, aryman, BartvanLeeuwen, TallTed, Arnaud, rhiaro, trackbot, ericP
18:02:57 <ericP> Zakim, ??p5 is really BartvanLeeuwen
18:02:57 <Zakim> +BartvanLeeuwen; got it
18:03:02 <cygri> cygri has joined #shapes
18:03:29 <cygri> zakim, code?
18:03:29 <Zakim> the conference code is 742737 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), cygri
18:03:40 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
18:03:46 <cygri> zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
18:03:46 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
18:03:59 <Zakim> +Dimitris
18:03:59 <ericP> Zakim, [ is hsolbrig
18:04:00 <Zakim> +hsolbrig; got it
18:04:06 <cygri> zakim, mute me
18:04:06 <Zakim> cygri should now be muted
18:04:31 <BartvanLeeuwen> -1
18:04:54 <Zakim> +??P18
18:05:24 <SimonSteyskal> SimonSteyskal has joined #shapes
18:05:33 <ericP> Zakim, ???P18 is SimonSteyskal
18:05:34 <Zakim> sorry, ericP, I do not recognize a party named '???P18'
18:05:38 <ericP> Zakim, ??P18 is SimonSteyskal
18:05:38 <Zakim> +SimonSteyskal; got it
18:05:45 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:06:23 <ericP> scribebick: TallTed
18:06:32 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
<ericP> chair: ericP
<ericP> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.05.07
<ericP> regrets: Arnaud
18:06:34 <pfps> scribenick: TallTed
18:06:41 <ericP> Zakim, [ is Labra
18:06:41 <Zakim> +Labra; got it
18:06:44 <Labra> zakim, [IPCaller] is labra
18:06:44 <Zakim> sorry, Labra, I do not recognize a party named '[IPCaller]'
18:06:48 <ericP> topic: Admin
18:07:01 <ericP> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 30 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/30-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:02 <pfps> minutes look OK to me
18:07:16 <ericP> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 30 April Telecons: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/30-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:45 <ericP> next meeting: 2015.05.14
18:08:42 <ericP> topic: Tracking of actions & issues
18:08:50 <cygri> ack me
18:09:07 <TallTed> action-19?
18:09:07 <trackbot> action-19 -- Richard Cyganiak to Add requirement(s) for RDF collections to address ISSUE-46 -- due 2015-04-30 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:09:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/19
18:09:24 <cygri> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0017.html
<ericP> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-47 and ISSUE-48
18:12:42 <TallTed> +1 open both
18:12:47 <pfps> +1 to opening 47
18:12:52 <Dimitris> +1
18:12:57 <pfps> +1 to opening 48 as well
18:13:02 <SimonSteyskal> +1
18:13:10 <Labra> +1
18:13:41 <Dimitris> +1 to open 48
<ericP> RESOLVED: Close ACTION-19
<ericP> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-47 and ISSUE-48
18:17:48 <cygri> ISSUE-47?
18:17:48 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? -- open
18:17:48 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/47
18:18:55 <cygri> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:18:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps, hsolbrig, TallTed, ericP, aryman, kcoyle, BartvanLeeuwen, cygri, Dimitris, SimonSteyskal, Labra
18:16:20 <ericP> topic: SHACL spec
18:19:31 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-37
18:19:36 <TallTed> issue-37?
18:19:36 <trackbot> issue-37 -- Naming of node kind facet -- open
18:19:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/37
18:20:29 <kcoyle> +q
18:21:14 <ericP> ack kcoyle
18:21:37 <aryman> q+
18:21:57 <TallTed> kcoyle: what does facet mean here?
18:22:18 <ericP> ack next
18:22:48 <TallTed> aryman: "facet" here refers to the different kinds of things which can be used to define constraints -- "facets of a constraint"
18:23:08 <SimonSteyskal> +q
18:23:23 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:24:35 <TallTed> ericP: are these all the facets we can think of?
18:24:45 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:25:01 <hknublau> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:25:01 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
18:25:14 <ericP> ack SimonSteyskal
18:25:28 <TallTed> aryman: no, there are others.  e.g., may want to require a literal be from a list of values
18:25:47 <TallTed> q+
18:26:05 <ericP> ack next
18:26:44 <cygri> q+
18:26:58 <ericP> ack next
18:27:55 <ericP> q+ to propose really long names until we resolve names
18:28:13 <TallTed> TallTed: there are too many variables in flux here -- each of these impacts the others, so deciding on one at a time doesn't work.  we need sets to consider against each other, even if that starts with a lot of sets.
18:28:57 <TallTed> cygri: we don't need to focus on this now.  let the editors pick a set, and people can argue against those later, if there are issues.
18:29:21 <ericP> q?
18:29:24 <ericP> ack next
18:29:25 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose really long names until we resolve names
18:30:16 <Dimitris> +q
18:30:20 <TallTed> ericP: one thing we could do for safety is to use painfully clear names, e.g., RdfSyntaxNodeKind, so search-and-replace later, when we figure out what simpler names we like, is easy
18:30:34 <ericP> ack next
18:30:56 <cygri> q+
18:31:02 <ericP> ack next
18:31:26 <TallTed> Dimitris: test suite development demands more stability than that would give us
18:31:51 <TallTed> cygri: we're not far enough along to deliver that much stablity...
18:34:41 <TallTed> ericP: maybe TallTed can pivot the naming under consideration.
18:35:23 <ericP> ACTION: TallTed to arrange https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names to have a table of aspects of contraints (X) and coherent proposals (Y)
18:35:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - Arrange https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/facet_property_names to have a table of aspects of contraints (x) and coherent proposals (y) [on Ted Thibodeau - due 2015-05-14].
18:35:48 <ericP> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/42
18:36:01 <TallTed> topic: issue-42
18:36:05 <TallTed> issue-42?
18:36:05 <trackbot> issue-42 -- Adding sh:notEqual to potential datatype properties? -- open
18:36:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/42
18:36:26 <cygri> q+
18:37:02 <aryman> q+
18:37:36 <TallTed> SimonSteyskal: basically sh:notEqual syntactic sugar to remove need to bracket with sh:maxExclusive, sh:minExclusive
18:37:48 <ericP> ack next
18:37:52 <TallTed> ... could also handle with SPARQL, if that's available
18:39:06 <TallTed> cygri: slippery slope here.  easy to say "notEqual to a constant" but it's also easy to imagine more complex comparatives than that constant -- another property, some complex relationship, etc.
18:39:36 <SimonSteyskal> +q
18:39:46 <ericP> ack SimonSteyskal
18:39:46 <Dimitris> +q
18:39:59 <TallTed> ... how common is this use case?  if very common, then perhaps sugar makes sense; if not so common, better to push to extension mechanism
18:40:34 <Labra> +q
18:40:45 <ericP> ack next
18:41:17 <Dimitris> q-
18:41:44 <ericP> -> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/41 issue 41
18:42:22 <Dimitris> *a common use case is owl property disjointness*
18:43:11 <TallTed> Labra: supports not equal as part of core
18:43:24 <TallTed> q+
18:43:48 <cygri> q+
18:43:51 <TallTed> aryman: my concern is complexity of evaluation of potentially complex expression
18:45:19 <TallTed> SimonSteyskal: origin was railway domain, where two values could not be equal
18:45:44 <ericP> ack next
18:46:14 <ericP> ack TallTed
18:46:36 <Labra> TallTed: we are already evaluating comparisons...so we could also evaluate negatively as well
18:47:50 <ericP> ack next
18:48:22 <ericP> q+
18:48:23 <TallTed> TallTed: so 41 and 42 are explicitly about paths...  changes consideration
18:48:35 <aryman> q+
18:48:37 <Labra> q+
18:49:08 <TallTed> cygri: question here seems more how to decide core vs not-core/extension
18:50:12 <ericP> ack next
18:50:45 <ericP> ack next
18:51:04 <TallTed> cygri: which should be based on commonality of requirement/need, according to charter and otherwise
18:51:44 <ericP> ack next
18:51:56 <TallTed> aryman: grey area exists, too, depending on complexity of implementation even for lightly-required feature
18:52:33 <TallTed> Labra: concedes there are more complexities than first thought, so this may belong in extension rather than core
18:52:45 <ericP> q?
18:54:56 <Dimitris> q+
18:55:13 <ericP> ACTION: Simon to propose a "more compelling" use case for = and != for property paths (Issue-41, Issue-42)
18:55:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Propose a "more compelling" use case for = and != for property paths (issue-41, issue-42) [on Simon Steyskal - due 2015-05-14].
18:57:27 <cygri> q+
18:57:42 <ericP> ack next
18:57:55 <ericP> ack next
18:58:26 <hsolbrig> +q
18:58:31 <SimonSteyskal> +q
18:58:37 <TallTed> [[ back and forth about supporting Property Paths in general, and what was intended by these issues ]]
18:59:13 <ericP> ack next
18:59:28 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:59:53 <cygri> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Named_Shapes
19:00:16 <TallTed> hsolbrig: question about uniqueness requirements for Named Shapes
19:01:06 <ericP> ack next
19:01:41 <TallTed> SimonSteyskal: both issues could certainly be realized through extension mechanism; just wanted to raise the question of whether these were worth putting into core
19:02:55 <ericP> ACTION: Simon to write up semantics (eq, ne, and any other constraint aspect) in the face of zero-or-more results to a property path
19:02:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Write up semantics (eq, ne, and any other constraint aspect) in the face of zero-or-more results to a property path [on Simon Steyskal - due 2015-05-14].
19:03:37 <TallTed> topic: issue-23
19:03:38 <TallTed> issue-23?
19:03:38 <trackbot> issue-23 -- Shapes, classes and punning -- open
19:03:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:03:42 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23 ISSUE-23: Shapes, classes and punning
19:03:50 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
19:08:41 <aryman> q+
19:08:51 <ericP> ack next
19:09:00 <hsolbrig> q+
19:09:36 <ericP> ack next
19:10:36 <TallTed> [[ classes are not shapes ... mixing them is potentially troublesome ... but some want to mix them in some ways ]]
19:10:44 <hknublau> +q
19:10:51 <ericP> ack next
19:11:45 <cygri> q+
19:12:08 <ericP> ack next
19:12:45 <TallTed> hknublau: my starting point in ldom had no shapes, classes were sufficient.  ontology developers who must define both a person and personshape may just laugh at us.
19:14:56 <aryman> q+
19:15:00 <Dimitris> +q
19:15:04 <TallTed> cygri: summarizes three viewpoints: 1) class and shape are different, and if we blend them, bad things will happen.
19:15:04 <TallTed> ... 2) it's debatable whether and how class and shape are different, and potential problems are addressable when/if they arise.
19:15:04 <TallTed> ... 3) class and shape are basically the same, and blending is natural
19:15:06 <ericP> ack next
19:15:06 <pfps> problem 1: if shapes are classes then they will be used for ontology modelling
19:15:51 <TallTed> aryman: people wanted something like shapes, but all they had was rdfs and owl, so these were used ... or more correctly, mis-used
19:16:04 <hknublau> +q
19:16:12 <TallTed> ... if you put that into a reasoner, you get unintended answers
19:16:31 <TallTed> ... stardog proposed an alternate semantics for owl
19:16:55 <ericP> ack next
19:17:05 <TallTed> ... proposals are now about constraints, why go back to inferencing?
19:17:11 <cygri> aryman, classes can be used for other things than inferencing.
19:17:11 <pfps> Stardog ICV is not an alternative semantics for OWL as an ontology language, it is a way to define constraints that uses the syntax of OWL
19:18:05 <ericP> ack next
19:18:12 <TallTed> Dimitris: shapes and classes are different, but we could blur the lines in some ways
19:20:20 <TallTed> hknublau: two topics here -- 1) do we want to support selection of shapes based on rdf:type?  already resolved and accepted
19:20:20 <TallTed> ... 2) how can we make the link between classes and shapes to handle that support?  easy if they're permitted to overlap (and could have same URI); harder if not, means many more questions must be answered
19:20:57 <ericP> q+ to ask if the propsal is that having one node identifying a type and a shape but have those definitions kept in seperate graphs
19:22:35 <hsolbrig> q+
19:22:41 <ericP> ack next
19:22:42 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if the propsal is that having one node identifying a type and a shape but have those definitions kept in seperate graphs
19:22:42 <TallTed> q+
19:22:43 <ericP> ack next
19:23:04 <ericP> ack next
19:23:07 <aryman> q+
19:23:37 <ericP> ack next
19:24:11 <hknublau> +q
19:24:20 <ericP> TallTed: +1 to harold. both extremes seem bad. giving the choice seems optimal
19:24:34 <Dimitris> q+
19:25:00 <pfps> +1 to Arthur, the issue not whether classes can or can't be shapes but whether the processors need to do something special for classes that are shapes
19:25:07 <ericP> ... is sounds like you are saying that by asserting the type arc, i'm imposing that class in all places and times
19:25:21 <cygri> q+
19:25:28 <ericP> ... i think that we're closing withing a topic
19:25:34 <TallTed> s/topic/context
19:25:55 <TallTed> s/imposing that class/imposing that shape on that class/
19:25:55 <ericP> ack next
19:26:42 <TallTed> aryman: "what does it mean for a shape to be a class?"
19:27:16 <cygri> q-
19:27:37 <TallTed> hknublau: the meaning is the same as if you define a shape identically to the class for which you're defining that shape...
19:27:42 <aryman> q+
19:27:56 <TallTed> hknublau: it's basically syntactic sugar
19:28:09 <ericP> ack next
19:29:08 <ericP> ack next
19:29:30 <Zakim> -hsolbrig
19:29:36 <TallTed> aryman: it's very common in RDF to have links that refer to resources in other graphs
19:30:23 <TallTed> ... say a bug report, and reference is a test case.   :hasRelatedTestCase :xyz, :xyz a :testCase
19:30:33 <pfps> Yes, another problem is just what it means to be a class?  Is it a direct rdf:type link to rdfs:class?  Can there be rdfs:subClassOf links involved?  Can there be rdfs:subPropertyOf links involved?  There will be complaints about any of these options.
19:31:38 <cygri> aryman, you can do that with subclasses.
19:32:26 <pfps> bye
19:32:29 <ericP> ADJOURNED
19:32:31 <Zakim> -pfps
19:33:02 <Zakim> -BartvanLeeuwen
19:41:47 <hknublau> hknublau has left #shapes
19:42:37 <Zakim> -SimonSteyskal
19:42:39 <Zakim> -ericP
19:42:39 <Zakim> -Dimitris
19:42:42 <Dimitris> Dimitris has left #shapes
19:42:44 <Zakim> -aryman
19:55:26 <Zakim> -kcoyle
19:56:25 <Zakim> -hknublau
19:56:26 <Zakim> -TallTed
19:56:26 <Zakim> -cygri
19:56:34 <Zakim> -Labra
19:56:36 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended
19:56:36 <Zakim> Attendees were pfps, ericP, aryman, TallTed, kcoyle, BartvanLeeuwen, cygri, Dimitris, hsolbrig, SimonSteyskal, Labra, hknublau
19:57:00 <cygri> very sneaky, Labra ;-)
20:03:16 <TallTed> trackbot, end meeting
20:03:16 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:03:16 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
20:03:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:03:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/07-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:03:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:03:25 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/07-shapes-actions.rdf :
20:03:25 <RRSAgent> ACTION: TallTed to arrange https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names to have a table of aspects of contraints (X) and coherent proposals (Y) [1]
20:03:25 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/07-shapes-irc#T18-35-23
20:03:25 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Simon to propose a "more compelling" use case for = and != for property paths (Issue-41, Issue-42) [3]
20:03:25 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/07-shapes-irc#T18-55-13
20:03:25 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Simon to write up semantics (eq, ne, and any other constraint aspect) in the face of zero-or-more results to a property path [4]
20:03:25 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/07-shapes-irc#T19-02-55