17:58:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:58:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/14-shapes-irc
17:58:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:58:22 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:58:24 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:58:24 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
17:58:25 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:58:25 <trackbot> Date: 14 May 2015
17:58:29 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has now started
17:58:36 <Zakim> +pfps
18:00:10 <Zakim> +Arnaud
18:00:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:00:23 <hknublau> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:00:23 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
18:01:26 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:01:35 <Zakim> + +1.510.435.aaaa
18:01:53 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:02:03 <kcoyle> zakim, aaaa is me
18:02:03 <Zakim> +kcoyle; got it
18:02:11 <ericP> having a hard time dialing it
18:02:48 <Zakim> +ericP
18:03:34 <Zakim> +[OpenLink]
18:03:40 <TallTed> Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
18:03:40 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
18:03:41 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:03:41 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:04:13 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:04:49 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.05.14
18:04:52 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:05:01 <Arnaud> scribenick: hknublau
<Arnaud> regrets: SimonSteyskal, hsolbrig, cygri
18:05:33 <Zakim> + +1.905.764.aabb
18:05:57 <kcoyle> zakim, aabb is aryman
18:05:57 <Zakim> +aryman; got it
18:06:08 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:06:22 <hknublau> Topic: Admin
18:06:45 <Zakim> + +30694579aacc
18:06:59 <Dimitris> zakim, +30694579aacc is me
18:06:59 <Zakim> +Dimitris; got it
18:07:01 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
18:07:01 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
18:07:30 <hknublau> Arnaud: Not clear if ISSUE-46 is closed (It is not).
18:07:34 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:07:34 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:07:39 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 7 May Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/07-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:41 <pfps> minutes looked fine to me
18:08:07 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 7 May Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/07-shapes-minutes.html
18:08:31 <michel> michel has joined #shapes
18:08:58 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:09:05 <hknublau> Topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues
18:09:15 <michel> regrets, i have a conflict
<hknublau> no progress on open actions
18:10:06 <hknublau> Topic: Agenda for F2F next week
18:10:50 <hknublau> Arnaud: Current agenda just there to outline meeting times
18:12:23 <aryman> q+
18:13:02 <hknublau> … we may start discussing test cases even if no draft is there yet
18:13:45 <hknublau> … I hope next meeting will be real face to face again
18:14:34 <hknublau> … Report from social WG, which also has entrenched groups with three proposals
18:15:16 <hknublau> … at the last F2F of that report, we had in-depth dives for each proposal, based on (general enough) user stories
18:16:09 <hknublau> … goal was to increase understanding, then self-criticism session.
18:17:11 <hknublau> … some magic happened: collaboration improved, possible convergence points identified
18:18:18 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:18:55 <hknublau> aryman: what we need is a process to pick a document
18:19:29 <hknublau> … we could create sample data to be validated
18:20:13 <kcoyle> Arnaud: +1, maybe a miracle will happen, but we won't know without trying
18:20:13 <pfps> shapes as classes is a detail, not a fundamental issue
18:20:26 <hknublau> +q
18:20:31 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:21:55 <hknublau> hknublau: classes vs shapes is independent of draft selection, needs to be answered in any case
18:22:04 <aryman> q+
18:22:11 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:22:14 <kcoyle> +q
18:23:03 <hknublau> aryman: lots of issues are cross-cutting, we should avoid triplicating efforts to improve efficiency of discussion
18:23:07 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:23:51 <hknublau> kcoyle: Pushing hard for specific examples, happy to provide examples
18:24:51 <ericP> +1 to arnaud's proposal
18:25:04 <pfps> I'm willing to do the work required
18:25:06 <hknublau> arnaud: Presenters could prepare user stories based on specific examples
18:26:37 <hknublau> … an hour per proposal, “demo”
18:27:52 <hknublau> … “what would it take for the other proposals to be acceptable” -> compromises
18:28:13 <hknublau> +q
18:28:19 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:29:06 <pfps> I view the ShEx proposal as *very* different from the other two.
18:29:08 <pfps> q+
18:30:14 <hknublau> hknublau: Drafts mainly differ in ways that things are formalized, not so much on surface syntax
18:30:38 <hknublau> arnaud: Traffic has slowed down a bit, is everyone just frustrated?
18:30:38 <pfps> As far as I am concerned, the issues that have been discussed matter very little to me, so I have not been posting much.
18:30:51 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:31:36 <hknublau> pfps: ShEx proposal is completely different from the other two ones, despite SPARQL fallback
18:32:13 <pfps> s/issues/discussion/  in my typed comment
18:32:39 <hknublau> arnaud: if this meeting doesn’t lead to starting point, we are in real trouble with schedule.
18:33:47 <hknublau> Topic: Requirements
18:34:06 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/46
18:34:31 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0017.html
18:34:36 <aryman> q+
18:34:42 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:34:58 <hknublau> Arnaud: is issue resolved now that the requirement is written down?
18:35:04 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
18:35:04 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
18:35:44 <pfps> I think that the two requirements address the need for validating rdf:Lists, so ISSUE-46 can be closed.  This is *separate* from actually approving the requirements.
18:36:29 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-46 by adding requirements 2.6.12 and 2.6.13 as proposed by Richard in: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0017.html
18:36:44 <hknublau> +1
18:36:55 <TallTed> +1
18:37:11 <pfps> There are lots of aspects of RDF documents that the WG is not addressing.
18:37:19 <pfps> +1
18:37:21 <aryman> +1
18:37:38 <Dimitris> +1
18:37:53 <pfps> +1 to adding the requirements to the requirements page (i'm also in favour of approving the requirements, by the way)
18:37:53 <Labra> +1
18:38:09 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-46 by adding requirements 2.6.12 and 2.6.13 as proposed by Richard in: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0017.html
18:38:39 <kcoyle> +1
18:39:05 <hknublau> Topic: SHACL Spec
18:39:52 <aryman> q+
18:39:55 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: open ISSUE-49
18:39:56 <pfps> q+
18:40:02 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:40:06 <hknublau> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/49
18:41:26 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:42:11 <hknublau> pfps: unclear about distinction, ShEx doesn’t have scoped vs unscoped shapes, neither is it essential to the others.
18:42:42 <TallTed> q+
18:42:45 <hknublau> … not sure if this distinction matters
18:43:26 <hknublau> Dimitris: yes it is a technical question
18:43:39 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
18:44:56 <hknublau> TallTed: This seems to be about nested shapes, if you have more than zero of something, then they must be within constraints
18:46:39 <hknublau> Dimitris: Mostly about complexity
18:46:47 <pfps> leave as is
18:46:56 <hknublau> Arnaud: Shall we close and later reopen, or just wait?
18:47:00 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
18:47:00 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
18:47:00 <aryman> q+
18:47:06 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:47:51 <hknublau> aryman: In Holger’s draft this is more like a filter condition
18:48:32 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
18:48:32 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
18:48:41 <pfps> In my proposals, all shapes are unscoped.  They only get a scope in use.
18:48:50 <pfps> s/proposals/proposal/  :-)
18:49:07 <hknublau> … Hard to discuss without having a draft first, we should delay this topic
18:50:47 <hknublau> … can we postpone it in issue tracker?
18:50:50 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Postpone ISSUE-49
18:50:59 <aryman> +1
18:51:00 <hknublau> +1
18:51:00 <kcoyle> +1
18:51:00 <Dimitris> +1
18:51:08 <Labra> +1
18:51:10 <TallTed> +1
18:51:18 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Postpone ISSUE-49
18:52:27 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S43:_Using_Property_Paths_for_Property_Value_Comparison
18:52:59 <hknublau> +q
18:53:06 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:54:19 <aryman> q+
18:54:27 <kcoyle> +q
18:54:32 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:54:57 <hknublau> hknublau: I believe notEqual doesn’t belong into the core - too specific. Can already be handled by macros + SPARQL, already approved
18:55:23 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:55:30 <hknublau> aryman: Does not look like a compelling example yet
18:56:00 <hknublau> kcoyle: Can we agree on term “Core”
18:57:56 <hknublau> Arnaud: Maybe we can extend the core now to make everyone happy, reduce resistance against SPARQL extensions.
18:58:34 <pfps> It's too soon to dispose of S43
18:58:42 <aryman> q+
18:58:55 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:59:22 <pfps> q+
19:00:24 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:01:11 <hknublau> pfps: S44 requires revision, mangled
19:01:57 <pfps> the body of S44 is completely unrelated to issue-42
19:02:22 <hknublau> Arnaud: let’s move on
19:02:54 <pfps> q+
19:03:08 <aryman> q+
19:03:10 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:03:19 <Arnaud> issue-48?
19:03:19 <trackbot> issue-48 -- How do we limit the scope for a shape? -- open
19:03:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/48
19:03:37 <hknublau> pfps: Title is misleading
19:05:04 <hknublau> … Michel (probably) wants the scope to be more than for example class membership
19:05:17 <aryman> q+
19:05:36 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:05:55 <hknublau> Arnaud: Michel should take another pass at the issue
19:06:02 <pfps> The title of ISSUE-48 talks about how to limit the scope of shapes, which all proposals have.  The body talks about scopes of shapes that go beyond just individuals and class extensions.
19:06:14 <michel> coming
19:06:46 <Zakim> +michel
19:07:54 <hknublau> michel: whether or not we can select data for a shape, not for all data but for selected data only
19:08:21 <aryman> q+
19:08:32 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:08:44 <pfps> I'm still confused as to whether Michel wants scopes on shapes or expressive scopes on shapes.
19:08:46 <hknublau> aryman: Are you asking for a requirement or propose a design?
19:08:58 <pfps> Every proposal has scopes on shapes.
19:09:16 <pfps> Some proposals only have limited kinds of scopes allowable.
19:09:18 <hknublau> +q
19:09:25 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:10:15 <pfps> As Holger says, there are already requirements for instance and class scopes.
19:10:27 <pfps> I agree with Holger that expressive scopes are useful.
19:10:58 <hknublau> hknublau: scope as precondition is not yet captured by requirements
19:11:03 <aryman> q+
19:11:32 <Dimitris> I also agree to include general scopes
19:11:42 <pfps> An expressive scope would work just like a class-based scope - I don't see any difference.
19:11:54 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:12:06 <pfps> Of course, there may be effects of allowing expressive scopes.
19:12:31 <hknublau> aryman: if precondition fails then the constraint may be true
19:13:06 <hknublau> +q
19:13:10 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:13:13 <aryman> its like an if-then
19:13:48 <pfps> For example you could have a scope be all nodes that are objects of a particular property - if the type is rdf:type then this is (close to) class scopes
19:14:11 <aryman> q+
19:14:29 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:14:29 <pfps> I'm not sure why "core" is again raising its head
19:15:03 <hknublau> hknublau: maybe scopes should go into another sub-dialect than “core”
19:15:39 <hknublau> aryman: dynamic forms are a frequent requirement, as long as scopes are nice and declarative, they should be supported by core
19:16:38 <Zakim> -michel
19:16:44 <michel> just lost power
19:16:46 <michel> lol
19:16:47 <hknublau> pfps: I am in favor of adding this requirement for expressive scopes, separate from core-or-not
19:17:57 <pfps> PROPOSED:  Close ISSUE-48 by adding a requirement that the effect of expressive scopes be in SHACL
19:18:15 <hknublau> +1
19:18:21 <aryman> +1
19:18:28 <Dimitris> +1
19:18:28 <michel> +1
19:18:34 <kcoyle> +1
19:18:43 <TallTed> +1
19:18:47 <Labra> +1
19:18:51 <pfps> I'm willing to write the requirements
19:19:12 <Arnaud> RESOLVED:  Close ISSUE-48 by adding a requirement that the effect of expressive scopes be in SHACL
19:19:19 <pfps> q+
19:19:31 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:19:42 <pfps> ACTION pfps: write requirement coming from ISSUE-48
19:19:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Write requirement coming from issue-48 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2015-05-21].
19:20:22 <hknublau> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:20:43 <Arnaud> ISSUE-23?
19:20:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- Shapes, classes and punning -- open
19:20:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:22:15 <hknublau> +q
19:22:19 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:22:34 <TallTed> q+
19:23:00 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
19:23:43 <hknublau> TallTed: some of the discussion in last meeting was about the flexibility to allow mixing classes and shapes
19:24:12 <hknublau> … to avoid having to rewrite their ontology with shapes, reusing the same URI should be allowed
19:24:31 <hknublau> … does not mean that every shape is a class or every class is a shape. 
19:25:01 <hknublau> … allow people to do things more efficiently
19:25:24 <hknublau> Arnaud: We cannot really prevent users from mixing classes and shapes anyway
19:26:12 <aryman> q+
19:26:23 <hknublau> TallTed: Tools that don’t understand shapes can ignore the shape aspect
19:26:38 <pfps> But if I am a shape-aware system and I see a shape that is also a class am I obligated to run the shape on all instances of the class?
19:26:53 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:26:55 <hknublau> … owl:sameAs has been abused, but if you can selectively ignore certain sameAs triples, it’s fine.
19:27:39 <Dimitris> +q
19:28:06 <hknublau> ericP: still have to copy OWL restrictions into shape, so this doesn’t help you much
19:28:09 <pfps> +1 to eric
19:28:13 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:29:15 <hknublau> aryman: from Linked Data point of view, class is global, but may have different interpretations per graph
19:29:43 <hknublau> … if class definition is local then I have no discomfort
19:29:47 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:30:19 <hknublau> Dimitris: Allowing the same URI is OK, but would prefer to keep metaclasses distinct.
19:30:37 <ericP> no one tells you what to do in the privacy of your own triple stoer
19:30:41 <ericP> store
19:31:20 <hknublau> Arnaud: Would prefer a solution that accommodates both design patterns.
19:31:30 <Zakim> -aryman
19:31:33 <Zakim> -TallTed
19:31:34 <Zakim> -hknublau
19:31:36 <Zakim> -ericP
19:31:38 <Zakim> -Arnaud
19:31:38 <Zakim> -kcoyle
19:31:39 <Zakim> -Dimitris
19:31:40 <Zakim> -pfps
19:31:50 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:31:51 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:31:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pfps, Arnaud, hknublau, [IPcaller], +1.510.435.aaaa, kcoyle, ericP, TallTed, +1.905.764.aabb, aryman, Dimitris, michel
<hknublau> Present: pfps, Arnaud, hknublau, [IPcaller], kcoyle, ericP, TallTed, aryman, Dimitris, michel (partially)
19:31:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:31:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/14-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:31:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:31:59 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/14-shapes-actions.rdf :
19:31:59 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pfps to write requirement coming from ISSUE-48 [1]
19:31:59 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/14-shapes-irc#T19-19-42