17:59:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:59:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/28-shapes-irc
17:59:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:59:23 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:59:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:59:25 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
17:59:26 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:59:26 <trackbot> Date: 28 May 2015
18:00:08 <Arnaud> zakim, this is shapes
18:00:08 <Zakim> ok, Arnaud; that matches DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM
18:00:14 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #shapes
18:00:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:00:16 <Zakim> - +33.9.53.56.aabb
18:00:42 <Zakim> + +1.510.435.aacc
18:00:57 <simonstey> zakim, who's on the phone
18:00:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's on the phone', simonstey
18:01:08 <simonstey> zakim, who's here?
18:01:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.705.327.aaaa, Arnaud, ??P3, [IPcaller], +1.510.435.aacc
18:01:10 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:01:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see simonstey, Zakim, RRSAgent, hknublau, hsolbrig, pfps, iovka, kcoyle, TallTed, Arnaud, trackbot, rhiaro, ericP
18:01:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.705.327.aaaa, Arnaud, ??P3, [IPcaller], +1.510.435.aacc
18:01:18 <kcoyle> zakim, aacc is me
18:01:18 <Zakim> +kcoyle; got it
18:01:22 <simonstey> zaki, ??P3 is me
18:01:26 <simonstey> zakim, ??P3 is me
18:01:27 <Zakim> + +33.9.53.56.aadd
18:01:27 <Zakim> +simonstey; got it
18:01:58 <Zakim> +ericP
18:02:04 <Arnaud> zakim, aadd is iovka
18:02:04 <Zakim> +iovka; got it
18:02:05 <hsolbrig> zakim: IPCaller is me
18:02:15 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:02:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.705.327.aaaa, Arnaud, simonstey, [IPcaller], kcoyle, iovka, ericP
18:02:17 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:02:34 <hsolbrig> zakim IPCaller is me
18:02:38 <hsolbrig> zakim, IPcaller is me
18:02:38 <Zakim> +hsolbrig; got it
18:02:39 <Arnaud> zakim, IPcaller is hsolbrig
18:02:39 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
18:03:04 <hsolbrig> comma, semicolon, space...
18:03:05 <pfps> zakim, aaa is me
18:03:05 <Zakim> sorry, pfps, I do not recognize a party named 'aaa'
18:03:15 <pfps> zakim, aaaa is me
18:03:15 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
18:03:32 <michel> michel has joined #shapes
18:03:33 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:03:44 <hknublau> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:03:44 <Zakim> +hknublau; got it
18:04:20 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:04:42 <Labra> zakim, [IPcaller] is labra
18:04:42 <Zakim> +labra; got it
18:04:49 <Arnaud> zakim, who's on the phone?
18:04:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps, Arnaud, simonstey, hsolbrig, kcoyle, iovka, ericP, hknublau, labra
18:06:15 <hknublau> scribenick: hknublau
18:06:24 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:06:33 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.05.28
<Arnaud> topic: Admin
18:07:03 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 14 May Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/14-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:13 <pfps> These look fine to me.
18:07:19 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 14 May Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/14-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of F2F: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/05/20-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/05/21-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:33 <pfps> The F2F minutes are a bit variable, but the look acceptable.
18:08:27 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of F2F: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/05/20-shapes-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/05/21-shapes-minutes.html
18:09:11 <hknublau> Arnaud: Next meeting possibly with WebEx
18:10:01 <hknublau> Topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues
18:11:02 <pfps> Yes, ISSUE-21 appears to be done
18:13:03 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Selection_by_expression
18:14:09 <hknublau> Arnaud: Closing ISSUE-21 and ISSUE-48
18:14:34 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/26
18:15:51 <Arnaud> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/raised
18:17:04 <Arnaud>  PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-50 adopting Peter's proposal as much as possible
18:17:12 <hknublau> +1
18:17:15 <Labra> +1
18:17:19 <pfps> +1
18:17:22 <simonstey> +1
18:17:31 <iovka> +1
18:17:42 <kcoyle> +1
18:17:42 <ericP> +1
18:17:49 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-50 adopting Peter's proposal as much as possible
18:18:30 <hknublau> Topic: User Stories
18:19:14 <hknublau> Arnaud: We cannot discuss S55 as Arthur isn’t here, nor S54 as Dimitris isn’t here
18:19:49 <hknublau> Topic: SHACL spec
18:19:59 <hknublau> Arnaud: I sent around an email with the proposal
18:20:58 <hknublau> … Jose was out during the conversation so wasn’t able to agree
18:21:28 <hknublau> … Any questions or comments
18:21:29 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Adopt Holger's draft as the basis for the SHACL specification,  leveraging Peter's proposal to improve it, and define a compact syntax  for it along the lines of ShEx as described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0175.html
18:21:41 <Labra> q+
18:21:49 <hsolbrig> q+
18:21:54 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:22:27 <hknublau> Labra: Unclear how ShEx features will be covered
18:22:46 <hknublau> … exchanged emails with Holger, trying to convince him of abstract syntax
18:23:18 <hknublau> … will compact syntax be another section or separate document?
18:23:31 <hknublau> … compact syntax should be based on abstract syntax
18:24:11 <hknublau> Arnaud: I really with we could leave aside the question of how many documents we produce
18:24:23 <hknublau> … all will be on recommendation track
18:24:39 <Labra> q+
18:24:56 <pfps> q+ to ask why there is a need for an abstract syntax
18:25:38 <hknublau> … In Holger’s draft everything is just a draft, similarly any other feature can be added (e.g. the ShEx features)
18:25:53 <hknublau> … WG scrutiny decides per feature
18:26:50 <Zakim> +michel
18:26:55 <ericP> hknublau: i don't know why i'm being asked. this is for the WG.
18:27:08 <ericP> ... of course we want one normative defn
18:27:31 <ericP> ... if we want to have a non-normative AS, we can add it as a note
18:27:31 <Arnaud> ack hsolbrig
18:28:02 <ericP> ... but the compact syntax should be defined in terms of the RDF representation
18:28:19 <hknublau> hsolbrig: Concerned about the wording “along the lines of ShEx” because ShEx is a family.
18:28:39 <hknublau> … Should use “starting with ShExC” instead to clarify it’s about compact syntax
18:29:15 <hknublau> Arnaud: Agreed, ShExC was the intention.
18:29:20 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:29:20 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask why there is a need for an abstract syntax
18:29:53 <hknublau> pfps: If we refer to ShExC then we need a pointer to a document
18:30:35 <hknublau> … I don’t know what ShExC is (exactly).
18:30:44 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/ShEx2toy?lang=perl&markup=html#productions
18:30:50 <pfps> If there is a desire to have a particular "thing" for ShEx, then we need a pointer to the document
18:31:01 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/ShEx2?lang=perl&markup=html#productions
18:31:37 <hknublau> hsolbrig: Is syntax sufficient (we are behind on semantics)
18:31:54 <hknublau> Arnaud: Revising proposal
18:32:02 <pfps> q+
18:32:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: As described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0175.html, adopt Holger's draft as the basis for the SHACL specification,  leveraging Peter's proposal to improve it, and define a compact syntax  starting with ShExC as defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/ShEx2toy?lang=perl&markup=html#productions
18:32:41 <Arnaud> ack Labra
18:33:15 <hknublau> Labra: On Abstract Syntax, this doesn’t need to be the same document, but it’s so important that it needs to be included
18:33:57 <hknublau> … my feeling is that Compact Syntax then maybe it’s easier to talk about features
18:34:09 <hknublau> … but other features of ShEx are not covered by this proposal
18:34:23 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:34:32 <hknublau> … relationships covered by Iovka’s document and we should not lose that
18:35:17 <hknublau> pfps: Not able to vote now because of new link to ShExC is new information
18:36:18 <hknublau> ericP: Current version is similar to submission
18:36:46 <hknublau> … (some details that ericP may want to write down)
18:37:27 <michel> is this vote to accept the proposal as is?
18:37:41 <michel> or is it meant to be the basis by which the language will be developed?
18:37:42 <hknublau> pfps: There were some surprises in ShEx presentation last week
18:38:06 <michel> i'm worried that this conversation is not productive.
18:40:35 <hknublau> Arnaud: I would hate not to have a vote today
18:40:43 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shex-defn-20140602/#productions submission
18:41:32 <hknublau> hsolbrig: The most stable ShEx version is from Eric’s link.
18:42:17 <hknublau> … I have no problem with saying “starting with ShExC” at a given point
18:43:13 <hknublau> pfps: There have been dramatic changes to ShEx over the last few weeks
18:44:11 <hknublau> … I’d be fine with ShEx as generic label
18:44:49 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: As described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0175.html, adopt Holger's draft as the basis for the SHACL specification,  leveraging Peter's proposal to improve it, and define a compact syntax starting with ShEx
18:45:43 <hknublau> (I think you should say ShExC)
18:46:01 <Labra> q+
18:47:11 <hknublau> hsolbrig: ShEx entails more than compact syntax, so that would be fine too
18:47:15 <Arnaud> ack labra
18:47:26 <Labra> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/#abstract-syntax
18:48:01 <hknublau> Labra: Proposal should mention Abstract Syntax
18:48:27 <hknublau> Arnaud: This was already rejected last week
18:48:41 <hknublau> Labra: The vote was in different context
18:49:00 <hknublau> Arnaud: Nobody disagrees with compact syntax, and people are open to base this on ShEx
18:49:24 <hknublau> … We only want one governing semantics, SPARQL as much as possible
18:50:08 <hknublau> … Unknown how much is missing by SPARQL, undecided how to formalize the bits that are outside of SPARQL
18:50:30 <hknublau> … Alternative: agree to disagree and not move forward at all
18:50:42 <hknublau> … I understand this is a hard compromise for many
18:51:21 <hknublau> … we need to make one step at a time
18:51:54 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: As described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0175.html, adopt Holger's draft as the basis for the SHACL specification,  leveraging Peter's proposal to improve it, and define a compact syntax starting with ShEx
18:52:04 <hknublau> … I understand this not the perfect proposal for everyone, but this is how WG’s work
18:52:11 <simonstey> +1
18:52:14 <hknublau> +1
18:52:16 <kcoyle> +1
18:52:17 <pfps> +1
18:52:21 <Labra> -0.5
18:52:26 <ericP> -0.5
18:52:27 <hsolbrig> +0
18:52:27 <iovka> -1
18:52:36 <michel> +0
18:52:42 <iovka> I don't want to obstruct, but a number of us, apparently including Peter, think it won't be possible to use SPARQL templates to produce a semantics that meets the ShEx use cases. Let's note this objection and move on.
18:53:35 <hknublau> iovka: During F2F meeting I proposed to give us time to present, but we didn’t have time
18:53:51 <hknublau> … current proposal does not cover “our” use cases
18:54:25 <hknublau> Arnaud: we have a list of use cases and requirements
18:54:49 <hknublau> … as we move forward, these need to be captured, and accepted
18:55:26 <hknublau> … in my opinion, if this is all then I will have to overrule your objection
18:56:09 <hknublau> iovka: I did not mean to obstruct
18:56:32 <hknublau> … I will make objection more precise
18:57:47 <hknublau> Arnaud: If we find that the foundation is flawed because we cannot address all use cases, we can change everything at any time
18:58:19 <hknublau> … It is always WG’s decision to move forward
18:58:38 <hknublau> … Resolutions stay as long as they are not challenged.
18:58:42 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: As described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015May/0175.html, adopt Holger's draft as the basis for the SHACL specification,  leveraging Peter's proposal to improve it, and define a compact syntax starting with ShEx
18:59:04 <hknublau> … There is a process for formal objections
18:59:42 <hknublau> … objections will be brought to the attention of W3C management
19:00:00 <hknublau> … Your objection seems to be speculative
19:01:22 <hknublau> … We can have other editors beside Holder
19:01:34 <hknublau> (cannot spell my own name)
19:02:03 <hknublau> … Being an editor is quite a lot of work. Please tell if you are interested in being an editor
19:02:11 <pfps> q+
19:02:20 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:02:41 <hknublau> pfps: Editors did not have front-line responsibility to answer questions
19:04:08 <Labra> q+
19:04:09 <hknublau> Arnaud: we need to turn this into Editor’s draft
19:04:36 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:04:41 <hknublau> … Who would like to edit Compact Syntax
19:04:57 <hknublau> Labra: How do we proceed with compact syntax
19:05:04 <pfps> I would think that the Compact Syntax would be a separate document
19:05:14 <hknublau> Arnaud: I suggest a separate document with CS
19:05:22 <hknublau> +1
19:06:27 <hknublau> … What would it take for FPWD?
19:06:56 <hknublau> … Holger should reference ISSUEs in tracker
19:07:11 <hknublau> … raise any open issue from document formally
19:07:55 <hknublau> … when raising issues, you should also suggest solution
19:08:07 <hknublau> +q
19:08:13 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:09:08 <hknublau> hknublau: When could be a FPWD?
19:09:19 <hknublau> … Issues often take two weeks to address
19:10:28 <hknublau> Arnaud: Editorial changes don’t need approval, normative changes need approval
19:10:40 <Zakim> -iovka
19:11:17 <Zakim> +iovka
19:11:25 <hknublau> … Cannot give a time frame, expect Holger and Peter to suggest time frame
19:11:38 <hknublau> Topic: Raised Issues
19:12:24 <Labra> q+
19:12:31 <hknublau> … Many of these issues seem already handled
19:12:52 <Zakim> -michel
19:13:01 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ClosedShape
19:13:04 <hknublau> Labra: Closed shapes were in requirements
19:13:52 <hknublau> … not clear how features interact, e.g. cardinality with disjunction and groups of conjunctions
19:15:18 <hknublau> hknublau: I think we need to be more detailed than the general ISSUEs
19:15:21 <Labra> q+
19:15:50 <hknublau> Arnaud: Many raised ISSUEs seem to be about mismatch between compact syntax and current draft
19:16:02 <hknublau> Labra: Issues are indeed more general
19:16:08 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:17:28 <hknublau> Arnaud: I suggest editors of CS to do first pass, and relate it to SHACL draft, and find out gaps
19:17:45 <hknublau> … is there a gap already anywhere?
19:18:17 <hknublau> Labra: What would happen with multi-occurrance
19:18:38 <hknublau> … Different allowed values in different constraints
19:18:39 <pfps> q+
19:18:52 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:19:21 <hknublau> pfps: This problem goes back to ShEx, not a problem with something like SPIN.
19:19:42 <hknublau> … just saying that you don’t know is (unhelpful?)
19:21:17 <pfps> It may be that the document is unclear on how conjunction works.  That's a problem.  However, is this the case?  If not, then what is the problem?
19:21:37 <hknublau> ericP: Is is possible to point to spec now, and then ask, e.g. how to handle multi-occurrence
19:22:21 <hknublau> +q
19:22:46 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:23:06 <pfps> It may be that all these issues arise from the overall shape of the document, which in my opinion is not conducive to a crisp provision of the semantics of SHACL.
19:25:05 <hknublau> hknublau: I have so far only worked against the approved requirements, and that should be the process
19:25:25 <hknublau> Arnaud: I find many raised issues too high-level, they should be more precise
19:26:33 <hknublau> … e.g. Conjunction is not possible yet?
19:26:51 <hknublau> … what you say about interactions of conjunctions with other features
19:27:06 <hknublau> … Title of issue is not informative
19:28:02 <hknublau> (Can we at least open ISSUE-51)?
19:29:51 <hknublau> Labra: Still not clear what I need to do
19:30:04 <hknublau> Arnaud: Make your raised issues more specific
19:31:03 <hknublau> Out of time, happy to follow up in emails
19:31:27 <Zakim> -labra
19:31:30 <Zakim> -ericP
19:31:32 <Zakim> -kcoyle
19:31:33 <Zakim> -hsolbrig
19:31:33 <Zakim> -Arnaud
19:31:34 <hknublau> … This was a big day, I hope we can all work better together from now on
19:31:35 <Zakim> -iovka
19:31:35 <Zakim> -simonstey
19:31:36 <Zakim> -pfps
19:31:48 <Zakim> -hknublau
19:31:49 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended
19:31:49 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.705.327.aaaa, +33.9.53.56.aabb, Arnaud, +1.510.435.aacc, kcoyle, +33.9.53.56.aadd, simonstey, ericP, iovka, hsolbrig, pfps, hknublau, labra, michel
20:29:08 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:29:08 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:29:08 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
20:29:16 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:29:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/28-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:29:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:29:17 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
20:29:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
20:29:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/28-shapes-irc
20:29:47 <Arnaud> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
20:29:59 <Arnaud> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:29:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/28-shapes-minutes.html Arnaud
20:30:12 <Arnaud> RRSAgent, bye
20:30:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
<Arnaud> present: Arnaud, kcoyle, simonstey, ericP, iovka, hsolbrig, pfps, hknublau, labra, michel
<Arnaud> regrets: aryman, dimitris