17:58:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:58:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-shapes-irc
17:58:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:58:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:58:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:58:22 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
17:58:23 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
17:58:23 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:58:23 <trackbot> Date: 11 June 2015
17:58:36 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:01:00 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:01:41 <BartvanLeeuwen> BartvanLeeuwen has joined #shapes
18:01:44 <BartvanLeeuwen> hi
18:02:22 <michel> michel has joined #shapes
18:03:00 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has now started
18:03:06 <Zakim> + +1.905.764.aaaa
18:03:38 <Zakim> - +1.905.764.aaaa
18:03:39 <Zakim> DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended
18:03:39 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.905.764.aaaa
18:03:59 <simonstey> zakim, I'm on webex now
18:03:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'I'm on webex now', simonstey
18:04:50 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:07:40 <Arnaud> +present: Arnaud
18:08:19 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+
18:08:25 <pfps> +present: pfps
18:09:10 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
18:09:10 <Zakim> apparently DATA_RDFWG()2:00PM has ended, pfps
18:09:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see Dimitris, michel, BartvanLeeuwen, hknublau, Labra, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, simonstey, kcoyle, rhiaro, Arnaud, trackbot, ericP
18:09:54 <simonstey> present+ simonstey
18:10:13 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/WebExBestPractices#Attendance
18:10:18 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
18:10:42 <Dimitris> present+
18:10:49 <kcoyle> present+
18:10:50 <simonstey> Attendance      Best Practice: Each participant should type present+ <name> in the irc channel immediately upon joining the call
18:11:04 <kcoyle> present+ kcoyle
18:11:05 <pfps> given that Zakim knows who is on IRC, why do we need to enter attendance??
18:11:11 <BartvanLeeuwen> present+ BartvanLeeuwen
18:11:12 <pfps> present+ pfps
18:11:12 <hknublau> present+ hknublau
18:11:17 <Labra> present+
18:11:21 <Labra> present+ labra
18:11:23 <Dimitris> present+ dimitris
18:11:56 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #shapes
18:13:13 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 4 June Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/06/04-shapes-minutes.html
18:13:15 <pfps> q+
18:13:16 <Labra> Topic: Minutes from last week
18:13:20 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:13:37 <pfps> status of the approved user stories have not been changed
18:13:48 <pfps> otherwise minutes look OK
18:13:51 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 4 June Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/06/04-shapes-minutes.html
18:14:05 <Labra> meeting next week
18:14:17 <Labra> Topic: Next F2F
18:14:26 <Arnaud>  PROPOSED: Based on Doodle Poll the F2F4 in Lille will take place on September 8-10, 2015
18:15:20 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Based on Doodle Poll the F2F4 in Lille will take place on September 8-10, 2015
18:15:35 <Labra> Topic: Tracking of actions and issues
18:16:46 <Labra> Arnaud: To try and streamline our calls, from then on I will drop this agenda item and we will discuss issues or actions as they related to specific item
18:16:50 <Labra> ... in the agenda
18:17:02 <pfps> sounds OK
18:17:30 <Labra> Topic: SHACL formal definition
18:17:42 <Labra> Arnaud: there was an action for Peter
18:18:20 <Labra> ... to draft what his proposed document would look like
18:18:28 <Labra> action-27
18:18:28 <trackbot> action-27 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to Write outline of semantics document fragment -- due 2015-06-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:18:28 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/27
18:18:54 <Arnaud> close Action-27
18:18:54 <trackbot> Closed Action-27.
18:19:07 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0060.html
18:19:15 <Labra> Peter: a formal definition of SHACL includes 2,5 parts
18:19:22 <Labra> ... syntax, semantics
18:19:53 <Labra> Peter: tried to see where the syntax and the semantics worked all together
18:20:03 <Labra> ... even the simplest parts of the syntax were difficult
18:20:24 <Labra> ... showing what the vocabulary is but it doesn't solve the problem
18:20:42 <Labra> ... we need to collect together the definition of shacl in syntax
18:20:49 <Labra> ... semantics and functions
18:20:52 <hknublau> +q
18:20:57 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:21:28 <Labra> Holger: asks about how specifications are written
18:21:40 <Labra> ... if there is information in a Turtle file why we need to duplicate it
18:21:54 <Labra> ... his assumption is that SHACL is defined in itself
18:22:00 <Labra> ... in a machine readable form
18:22:15 <Labra> ... to what level do we need to duplicate that information?
18:22:21 <pfps> q+
18:22:44 <Labra> ... the turtle file contains details about the syntax
18:23:08 <Labra> ... the syntax declares the properties
18:23:21 <pfps> q-
18:24:17 <Labra> Peter: there is a number of things...as far as syntax goes maybe...as far as semantics goes you need more than a turtle file
18:24:42 <Labra> ... it is difficult to figure out how much covers the turtle file
18:25:02 <Labra> ... it is necessary to state what is a SHACL graph
18:25:26 <Labra> ... as far as the document is now...there is a disconnection in the HTML and the syntax in the Turtle file
18:26:22 <Labra> ... maybe, one can say that the RDF graph is the definition of SHACL syntax
18:26:41 <Labra> Peter: it might work. I can't tell by now
18:27:04 <Labra> ... in programming languages the formal defnition includes grammars
18:27:11 <Labra> ... in BNF form
18:27:53 <Labra> ... there needs to be more in the document to describe the syntax...separate from the semantics
18:28:11 <Labra> ... how is it possible to define the semantics in a SHACL shape document
18:28:30 <Labra> ... the templates define the arguments that they take
18:29:08 <Labra> s/the templates define the arguments that they take/Holger:the templates define the arguments that they take/
18:30:16 <Labra> Arthur: is this the vocabulary for SHACL?
18:30:24 <TallTed> is the concern that a (which?) Turtle doc content is out of sync with an (which?) HTML doc content?  I'm fairly certain that the same information could be fully expressed in either/both...
18:30:24 <TallTed> and it's hard to keep two docs in such sync, so choosing one makes some sense, and if the Turtle is mandatory, that seems the obvious choice.
18:30:28 <Labra> Holger: yes, there is a link to a Turtle file
18:31:02 <TallTed> +1 arthur
18:31:18 <hknublau> +q
18:31:28 <simonstey> Turtle File: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/shacl.shacl.ttl
18:31:32 <Labra> Arthur: There can be some transformation mechanism to generate the HTML from the Turtle
18:31:55 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:32:26 <Labra> Holger: I like that idea because the Turtle file is very important
18:32:31 <Dimitris> *I cannot hear anything from webex, is it only me?*
18:32:55 <Arnaud> dimitris, it seems like it
18:33:01 <Dimitris> *I am back now*
18:33:58 <Labra> *I couldn't hear Peter*
18:34:19 <Dimitris> *sorry :) *
18:34:45 <Labra> Peter: I don't care whether the formal defnition is inline or in a separate document...
18:35:14 <Labra> ... what i think needs to be is a way to determine whether a RDF graph is a valid shach graph or not
18:35:23 <hknublau> +q
18:35:29 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:35:55 <Labra> Holger: the more I think about it, the more I like it...to autogenerate from the Turtle
18:36:35 <Labra> ... some technology to autogenerate all the classes, properties, etc. from the Turtle file
18:36:42 <Labra> ... it requires some work to set up
18:36:50 <Labra> ... but I like the idea
18:37:29 <Labra> ... there are some SPARQL constraints that haven't been formalized yet
18:37:48 <Labra> thanks
18:38:07 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:39:13 <Labra> Arthur: a tool where the input is a turtle file, it uses jena to generate the xml file and with xslt it generates HTML
18:39:26 <Labra> ...several vocabularies have published in that way
18:40:05 <Labra> s/...several vocabularies have published in that way/...several vocabularies have been published in that way/
18:40:33 <Labra> Arnaud: there may be some issues yet to address Peter's concern
18:40:37 <Labra> ...but let's move on
18:40:48 <Labra> Topic: SHACL issues
18:41:12 <Arnaud> ISSUE-66
18:41:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-66 -- SHACL should not be ill-founded -- raised
18:41:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/66
18:41:13 <Labra> Issue: http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/66
18:41:13 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-67 - Http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/66.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/67/edit>.
18:41:34 <Labra> Peter: the SHACL spec in the document is ill-founded
18:41:48 <hknublau> +q
18:41:48 <Labra> ...the examples that ilustrate that involve recursion
18:41:53 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:42:33 <Labra> Holger: given that we are writing a W3c specification it needs to be well founded...but he is not in favour to open the issue because it is not specific enough
18:42:48 <Labra> Arnaud: we all agree that it should be well founded
18:43:11 <Labra> Peter: this is a separate issue than "what to do with recursion"
18:43:56 <Labra> ...we can argue that the recursion issue could be solved
18:44:01 <simonstey> did you get  my question regarding issue 22?
18:44:30 <Labra> ...I don't believe we should publish a FPWD with an ill founded semantics
18:45:22 <TallTed> q+
18:45:30 <Labra> Arnaud: it is a saying we should not publish a spec that is broken
18:45:40 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
18:46:46 <Labra> Ted: it doesn't seem to be a issue
18:46:53 <pfps> q+
18:47:12 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:48:14 <Labra> Peter: should I have made the title as "the current spec is broken" so it could be addressed?
18:48:25 <Labra> Ted: yes
18:48:49 <Labra> ...and the issue should be more specific with some example
18:49:34 <Labra> Peter: the question is...there is an example where the current spec doesn't work...and that could be the issue
18:51:02 <Labra> Arnaud: as it is, the issue is not  actionable
18:52:06 <Labra> Ted: it seems to me that Arnaud sees Issue-66 as a special case of issue-22
18:53:06 <Labra> Arnaud: we leave it as is by now
18:53:28 <Labra> sorry for that
18:53:47 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-60: Shall SHACL support other extension languages beside SPARQL (like JavaScript)? saying yes, even though we may not define any such extension at this point, the design should allow it.
18:53:58 <hknublau> +1
18:54:13 <simonstey> +1
18:54:27 <Labra> +1
18:54:30 <BartvanLeeuwen> +1
18:54:59 <pfps> -1
18:55:04 <TallTed> +1
18:55:05 <kcoyle> +.5
18:55:22 <Dimitris> +0.5
18:55:33 <kcoyle> +0.5
18:56:14 <ericP> +1
18:56:28 <TallTed> q+
18:56:33 <Arnaud> aryman: +1
18:56:48 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
18:57:03 <Labra> Ted: I don't know what Peter's objection is
18:57:59 <Labra> Peter: if we had independent languages for SHape Expressions then I would be more in favour of this proposal
18:58:21 <Labra> ...the proposal to alowing different execution models would require those models to do the same thing...
18:58:38 <Labra> ...otherwise we would have non-interoperable definitions
18:59:07 <TallTed> q+
18:59:22 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
18:59:47 <Labra> Ted: the analogy was not to stylesheets...it was to script languages...which are independent
19:00:04 <Labra> ...anything you can do in javascript you can do with any other language
19:00:11 <Labra> ...and that's the same here
19:01:06 <Labra> ...the engines that will be created 5 years from now can incorporate javascript
19:01:11 <Labra> ...or whatever
19:02:25 <Labra> Peter: the proposal as it is written says that if you have sparql body and a javascript body they must do the same thing
19:02:51 <Labra> Holger: the goal should certainly be that those extensions should implement the same behaviour
19:03:03 <Labra> ...but I don't see as a showstopper...
19:03:16 <Labra> ...we must document that the behaviour must be the same
19:03:30 <Labra> ...but there is no way of doing that
19:03:59 <Labra> Peter: My major concern is interoperability
19:04:44 <Labra> ...for scripting language they were different languages
19:05:09 <Labra> ...now we have a situation where we don't have an extension language but execution models that have to behave the same way
19:05:52 <Labra> ...my understanding is that any feature in a spec must have some interoperability criteria
19:06:12 <ericP> so we could have two interoperable impls with js support, no?
19:07:42 <ericP> q+ to say that that we could have interoperabile implementations of a second language addressing different use cases
19:07:44 <Labra> Ted: right now, we say SHACL extension implemented in SPARQL and we allow for the possibility that there might be another one
19:08:45 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:08:45 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that that we could have interoperabile implementations of a second language addressing different use cases
19:08:45 <Labra> Peter: SHACL has a specification, it has an extension language that is SPARQL...and the contract if there are future extensions the execution bodys should produce the same error violations
19:09:09 <Labra> Eric: We have different use cases and different languages
19:09:36 <Labra> ...we could have javascript extensions and they need not have any interaction with other extensions
19:10:02 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:10:05 <Labra> ...we can have use case by use case
19:10:23 <Labra> Arthur: analogy with web browsers could be the object tag
19:11:34 <TallTed> +1 HTML <object> seems more fitting analog than <script>
19:11:54 <Labra> ...I don't think that it means that a javascript extension should behave the same as a SPARQL extension
19:12:41 <Labra> Holger: I am happy to see that it passes
19:12:51 <Labra> ...to say that this is also for the javascript people
19:13:21 <Labra> ...at the same time I'm feeling that Javascript may not be unreasonable
19:13:38 <Labra> ...it's not that difficult
19:14:18 <Labra> Arnaud: if someone has the energy to do that, great
19:14:57 <Labra> Holger: if we define javascript as an extension language...it doesn't mean that we need to define the templates in javascript
19:15:29 <Labra> ...otherwise there might be non-interoperable definitions
19:16:19 <Labra> Peter: If we allow multiple execution languages then interoperability is a nightmare
19:16:33 <TallTed> q+
19:16:34 <Labra> ...we must be careful not to introduce inteoperability issues
19:16:47 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
19:16:58 <Labra> Ted: there is a general practice in the web of elegant failure
19:17:05 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-60: Shall SHACL support other extension languages beside SPARQL (like JavaScript)? saying no
19:17:13 <Labra> ...if you see something that you don't recognize you don't fail
19:17:14 <hknublau> -1
19:17:17 <TallTed> -1
19:17:19 <pfps> +1
19:17:25 <Dimitris> -0.5
19:17:26 <Labra> -1
19:17:28 <ericP> -1
19:17:34 <simonstey> -1
19:17:37 <BartvanLeeuwen> -1
19:17:47 <kcoyle> -1
19:17:50 <Arnaud> aryman: -1
<Labra> Arnaud: Peter, I'm going to have to overrule your objection
19:18:26 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-60: Shall SHACL support other extension languages beside SPARQL (like JavaScript)? saying yes, even though we may not define any such extension at this point, the design should allow it.
<Labra> Arnaud: you have the possibility of filing a formal objection if you want to
19:19:16 <Arnaud> issue-47
19:19:16 <trackbot> issue-47 -- Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? -- open
19:19:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/47
19:19:39 <Dimitris> +q
19:19:45 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:20:02 <Labra> Dimitris: is this about the extension mechanism or about the core language?
19:21:18 <Labra> Holger: I believe that we should allow access the whole graph
19:21:36 <Labra> ...it adds a lot of power to users
19:21:49 <Dimitris> +q
19:22:08 <Labra> ...if somebody wants to get rid of those then we need to see a proposal
19:22:11 <pfps> q+
19:22:25 <Labra> ...some issues like closed graphs depend on this
19:23:06 <Labra> ...I believe keeping it flexible is the best thing
19:23:21 <Labra> ...the only problem is when you access to a remote sparql endpoint
19:23:40 <Labra> ...then you can't return the original graph again
19:24:15 <Labra> ...there are so many implementations where this is not a issue
19:24:16 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:24:54 <Labra> Dimitris: my point is that if we aim to have a single spec then SHACL should be used in all the cases
19:25:07 <Labra> ...we must specify how to access to the graph
19:25:21 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:25:32 <Labra> Peter: there are 2 issues
19:25:42 <Labra> ...whether access to the shapes graph is convenient
19:25:53 <Labra> ...the other one is if it is necessary
19:26:01 <Labra> ...I think it is not necessary
19:26:31 <Labra> ...one could implement however one wants it
19:26:59 <Labra> ...this issue is about accepting the SHAPE graph from the SPARQL code
19:27:44 <Labra> ...it is going to be very hard to correctly run it in many cases
19:27:45 <hknublau> +q
19:28:18 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:28:47 <Labra> Arthur: in XSLT there is something similar
19:29:23 <Labra> ...it also raises the issue about the compact syntax
19:29:57 <Labra> ...I think it can simplify programming if you have access to the shape graph
19:30:48 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:31:19 <Labra> Holger: the compact syntax can be compiled to a temporary graph
19:33:02 <BartvanLeeuwen> thx bye
19:33:13 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:33:13 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:33:13 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
19:33:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:33:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:33:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:33:22 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
19:33:25 <hknublau> hknublau has left #shapes
19:33:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
19:33:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-shapes-irc
19:33:55 <Arnaud> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
19:34:05 <Arnaud> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:34:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-shapes-minutes.html Arnaud
19:34:41 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.06.11
19:34:45 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
19:35:04 <Arnaud> present+ aryman
19:35:11 <Arnaud> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:35:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-shapes-minutes.html Arnaud
19:35:43 <Arnaud> present+ TallTed
19:36:11 <Arnaud> present+ ericP
19:36:19 <Arnaud>  RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:36:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/11-shapes-minutes.html Arnaud
19:38:30 <Arnaud> rrsagent, bye
19:38:30 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
<Arnaud> present: simonstey, Arnaud, kcoyle, BartvanLeeuwen, pfps, hknublau, labra, dimitris, aryman, TallTed, ericP