IRC log of shapes on 2015-07-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:57:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:57:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-shapes-irc
17:57:19 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:57:19 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
17:57:21 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:57:21 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:57:22 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:57:22 [trackbot]
Date: 23 July 2015
17:59:43 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
17:59:52 [Arnaud]
regrets: aryman, kcoyle
17:59:56 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
18:00:06 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.07.23
18:00:13 [Arnaud]
present+ Arnaud
18:00:18 [BartvanLeeuwen]
BartvanLeeuwen has joined #shapes
18:00:45 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
18:01:08 [pfps]
present+ pfps
18:01:16 [simonstey]
present+ simonstey
18:01:20 [Dimitris]
preent+ dimitris
18:01:57 [Arnaud]
present+ dimitris
18:02:01 [TallTed]
present+ TallTed
18:02:14 [Dimitris]
scribenick: dimitris
18:02:23 [BartvanLeeuwen]
present+ BartvanLeeuwen
18:04:24 [Arnaud]
regrets: ericP
18:05:36 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 16 July Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/16-shapes-minutes.html
18:05:37 [pfps]
minutes look OK to me
18:05:39 [Dimitris]
arnaud: let's get started, approval of the minutes of the last call
18:05:53 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 16 July Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/16-shapes-minutes.html
18:06:27 [simonstey]
me most likely
18:07:36 [Dimitris]
... holger pointed out that with resolution 62 we can close issue 5
18:07:55 [Dimitris]
... and issue 3
18:08:01 [pfps]
I am unclear as to how ISSUE-62 covers ISSUE-5
18:08:05 [simonstey]
related to that: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scopesAndFilters
18:08:35 [Arnaud]
issue-62
18:08:35 [trackbot]
issue-62 -- Selection or filtering by arbitrary expressions and shapes -- closed
18:08:35 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/62
18:08:58 [Dimitris]
pfps: resolution of issue 62 is selection/fitering
18:09:00 [simonstey]
+q
18:09:12 [Arnaud]
ack simonstey
18:09:47 [Dimitris]
simonstey: I think it covers issue 5
18:10:18 [Dimitris]
... it defines how shapes can be associated with resources
18:10:56 [Dimitris]
arnaud: does 62 cover all or are there other types of associations?
18:11:06 [pfps]
OK, scopes cover ISSUE-5 as far as I am concerned
18:11:06 [Dimitris]
q+
18:11:31 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
18:12:11 [Dimitris]
dimitris: I think issue 5 can be closed but not sure about issue 3
18:12:17 [Dimitris]
pfps: I am happy to close issue 5
18:12:56 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5 based on resolution of ISSUE-62, per Holger's email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jul/0067.html
18:13:02 [simonstey]
+1
18:13:04 [Dimitris]
+1
18:13:06 [pfps]
+1
18:13:13 [TallTed]
+1
18:13:49 [BartvanLeeuwen]
+1
18:13:55 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-5 based on resolution of ISSUE-62, per Holger's email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jul/0067.html
18:14:13 [Dimitris]
arnaud: let's see issue 3
18:14:24 [Arnaud]
issue-3
18:14:24 [trackbot]
issue-3 -- How is a shape associated with a graph? -- open
18:14:24 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/3
18:14:35 [pfps]
I don't think that the resolution of ISSUE-62 speaks to ISSUE-3 at all
18:15:26 [simonstey]
issue-3 is basically about an owl:imports for SHACL
18:15:33 [Dimitris]
dimitris: issue 3 is about a higher level than shape scopes
18:16:36 [Dimitris]
arnaud: let's leave issue 3 and move on to issue 65
18:16:38 [Arnaud]
issue-65
18:16:38 [trackbot]
issue-65 -- A consistent and cohesive definition of shapes, scopes, and constraints -- open
18:16:38 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65
18:17:19 [BartvanLeeuwen]
q+
18:17:32 [Dimitris]
... there was some discussion on this but didn't conclude
18:17:33 [Arnaud]
ack BartvanLeeuwen
18:18:25 [BartvanLeeuwen]
https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
18:18:44 [Dimitris]
BartvanLeeuwen: in the email conversation holger said he updated the draft, is this the location?
18:18:46 [Dimitris]
arnaud: yes
18:19:09 [pfps]
Holger's proposal is: shape = scope + [filter +] constraints
18:19:31 [Labra]
Labra has joined #shapes
18:20:04 [Dimitris]
pfps: shapes has a scope, optional filter and a set of constraints. a global shape doesn't look that way, it doesn;t have a scope, it just runs on everything
18:20:11 [pfps]
But a global shape doesn't look like that - maybe you can have an implicit scope for them
18:20:30 [simonstey]
and then you have different kinds of general scopes https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scope
18:20:53 [Dimitris]
arnaud: there is difference of how you used the terms
18:21:50 [Labra]
+present labra
18:22:00 [Dimitris]
pfps: you have to be careful to not exclude the other posibilities
18:22:04 [simonstey]
but we have sh:constraint which can be defined inside a shape
18:22:25 [Dimitris]
... as long as the wording is right and covers the corner cases it is fine
18:22:45 [Dimitris]
arnaud: what do we need to change in the draft
18:23:28 [Dimitris]
pfps: many places in the draft got me confused. There are a bunch of cases beyond the ones mentioned in the issue where the wording needs to change
18:23:42 [simonstey]
+q
18:23:50 [Arnaud]
ack simonstey
18:24:02 [Dimitris]
arnaud: first we need to agree on the definition of the terms and then the spec has to be inline with the definitions
18:24:17 [Dimitris]
simonstey: Holger should be involved in this
18:24:23 [BartvanLeeuwen]
+1
18:25:01 [Arnaud]
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes
18:25:32 [pfps]
q+
18:25:35 [Dimitris]
arnaud: if you look at section 2 on shapes (...reading definition...)
18:25:40 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:25:44 [Dimitris]
... are we ok with that?
18:26:33 [Dimitris]
pfps: I don't agree with that. the example afterwards is much better but the definition is not what shapes and constraints are
18:26:58 [pfps]
a constraint, by itself, doesn't define a restriction on anything
18:27:17 [pfps]
a shape is not a group of constraints have have the same focus nodes
18:27:25 [TallTed]
q+
18:27:53 [Dimitris]
arnaud: I would like to have a section on terminology
18:27:59 [pfps]
the constraints in a shape work in concert, but that's very different from what is said at the beginning of section 2
18:28:00 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
18:28:45 [Dimitris]
TallTed: a glossary would be useful
18:28:59 [Dimitris]
... peter what is your definition?
18:29:05 [simonstey]
constraint: https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#general-constraints
18:29:16 [Dimitris]
pfps: constraints by them selves don't do anything
18:30:03 [Dimitris]
pfps: you 'd have to say something like : a shape defines a constraint / restriction on a graph
18:30:24 [Dimitris]
... and shapes are evaluated based on their scopes and filter and once they are selected they are executed
18:30:37 [Dimitris]
... shapes are the ones that do things
18:30:40 [BartvanLeeuwen]
q+
18:31:21 [Dimitris]
... shape would be a restriction on how a graph should be
18:31:47 [Dimitris]
... a constraint says x has to have a name, it's nothing by itself
18:32:08 [Dimitris]
... constraints are the worker bees that do the validations
18:33:35 [Dimitris]
... after you evaluate the filters/scope then you evaluate constraints on the remaining nodes
18:34:14 [Dimitris]
TallTed: we can have something graphical along with some text to define that. I agree with your definitions
18:34:45 [BartvanLeeuwen]
q-
18:35:28 [Dimitris]
pfps: my proposal reads perfect, I cannot easily adjust it to another proposal I do not agree in
18:36:04 [Dimitris]
arnaud: we decided to use Holger's proposal and merge it with Peter's proposal
18:36:25 [Dimitris]
... and Peter's proposal reads really well and the current draft can really benefit from
18:37:04 [TallTed]
+1 simonstey re http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/images/SHACL-Validation-Process.png
18:37:36 [Dimitris]
... everyone should read Peter's proposal and see how definitions are introduced
18:38:14 [Dimitris]
pfps: in my wording shapes and constraints are flipped
18:38:44 [Dimitris]
... the reason I did this was by influencing from ShEx
18:39:20 [BartvanLeeuwen]
q+
18:39:33 [Dimitris]
tallted: constraints are components of a shape
18:39:48 [Arnaud]
ack BartvanLeeuwen
18:39:52 [Dimitris]
arnaud: I asking people for their opinion on this
18:40:38 [Dimitris]
BartvanLeeuwen: I hear constraints are nothing by themselves
18:41:15 [Dimitris]
... it is still rdf
18:41:23 [pfps]
The syntax permits reuse of constraints, i.e., a constraint can be in several shapes
18:41:44 [Dimitris]
constraint can the same whenever you need it e.g. on a social number
18:42:24 [Dimitris]
pfps: in the editors draft there is nothing that prohibits reuse
18:42:55 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
18:43:07 [Dimitris]
... libraries in RDF does not ease inclusion
18:44:04 [pfps]
Actually, RDF is missing the facilities to set up libraries, in that it doesn't have an inclusion mechanism
18:44:12 [Dimitris]
arnaud: there is not issue with scopes but we need to tackle this before a public WD
18:44:33 [BartvanLeeuwen]
+1
18:44:39 [Dimitris]
... decide on the definition and try to update the spec
18:48:02 [Dimitris]
hknublau: I am happy with the current definition
18:48:50 [hknublau]
Constraint is used as in SPIN, so for these people it’s consistent.
18:49:02 [Dimitris]
arnaud: Peter states that the definition is wrong, I'd like to request for next week's call we decide on the definitions
18:49:36 [Dimitris]
+1
18:50:32 [Dimitris]
... let's move to issue-76
18:51:55 [pfps]
I would prefer knowing what issues are going to be discussed before the meeting so that I can do any homework required
18:52:11 [Dimitris]
simonstey: I opened some issues holger links like issue 74 that we can easily close
18:52:21 [Dimitris]
s/links/linked/
18:52:39 [Dimitris]
... at least the naming issues are easy to resolve
18:53:51 [Dimitris]
holger: I proposed trivial issues since people might be on holidays
18:53:59 [Arnaud]
issue-37
18:53:59 [trackbot]
issue-37 -- Naming of node kind facet -- open
18:53:59 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/37
18:54:13 [simonstey]
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Facet_Property_Names
18:55:26 [Dimitris]
... on the wiki page we decided on all except of node kind
18:56:38 [simonstey]
https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#property-constraints-property
18:56:45 [Dimitris]
tallted: we should see the rest of the naming we decided
19:00:04 [Dimitris]
... let's use valueKind to be consistent
19:01:38 [pfps]
I care very little about these kinds, and would not vote against valueKind. However, I view it as a very unfortunate name, for the reasons that Holger states
19:01:42 [Dimitris]
hknublau: valueKind could be confused with type
19:03:13 [Arnaud]
STRAWPOLL: a) stick with sh:nodeKind, b) rename sh:nodeKind to sh:valueKind
19:03:21 [Dimitris]
... let's vote
19:03:37 [pfps]
a
19:03:40 [hknublau]
a) +0.7 b) 0
19:03:44 [BartvanLeeuwen]
a
19:03:44 [simonstey]
a) +0.5 b) 1
19:03:54 [Labra]
a) +0.5 b) 0
19:04:00 [Dimitris]
a
19:04:01 [TallTed]
a +1 b -0.5
19:04:38 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-37, keeping sh:nodeKind
19:04:43 [hknublau]
+1
19:04:43 [simonstey]
+1
19:04:48 [TallTed]
+1
19:04:49 [BartvanLeeuwen]
+1
19:04:54 [Dimitris]
+1
19:04:59 [pfps]
+1
19:05:11 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-37, keeping sh:nodeKind
19:05:44 [simonstey]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/59
19:06:05 [Arnaud]
issue-59
19:06:05 [trackbot]
issue-59 -- What are the default values for cardinalities? -- open
19:06:05 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/59
19:06:54 [Arnaud]
present+ labra
19:07:02 [pfps]
I'm happy with 0,* as that is the least restrictive, even though ShEx used 1,1
19:07:04 [Dimitris]
hknublau: in the current spec default is [0,unbound]
19:07:07 [hknublau]
present+ hknublau
19:07:13 [Dimitris]
labra: I have no problem
19:07:40 [simonstey]
sh:minCount xsd:integer The minimum cardinality. Optional. Default value is 0.
19:07:41 [simonstey]
sh:maxCount xsd:integer The maximum cardinality. Optional. Default interpretation is unlimited.
19:08:14 [pfps]
because ShEx is 1,1
19:10:17 [Dimitris]
arnaud: do you think if we decide on [0,unbound] other ShEx people are ok?
19:10:33 [Dimitris]
labra: I think yes but cannot speak for them
19:10:45 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-59, sticking with the current draft which is {0, unbound/unlimied}
19:10:48 [simonstey]
+1
19:10:49 [hknublau]
+1
19:10:55 [BartvanLeeuwen]
+1
19:10:55 [Dimitris]
arnaud:Eric can object afterward
19:10:59 [Dimitris]
+1
19:11:00 [Labra]
+0.5
19:11:23 [pfps]
+1
19:13:19 [Dimitris]
ericp: I would prefer [1,]1
19:13:34 [Dimitris]
s/[q.]1/[1,1]/
19:13:44 [Dimitris]
arnaud: let's have a strawpoll
19:14:15 [Arnaud]
STRAWPOLL: a) stick with {0, unbound/unlimited}, b) changed to {1,1}
19:14:24 [simonstey]
a) 1 b) 0
19:14:27 [pfps]
1, -0.7
19:14:30 [hknublau]
a) +1 b) -0.5
19:14:41 [Labra]
a) 0.5 b) 1
19:14:52 [Arnaud]
ericP: a) -.5, b) +1
19:14:56 [Dimitris]
a) +1 b) -0
19:14:58 [TallTed]
a) +1 b) -0.5
19:16:26 [Dimitris]
arnaud: I see majority voting on (a)
19:16:45 [Dimitris]
hknublau: (a) is more natural to what people expect
19:16:54 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-59, sticking with the current draft which is {0, unbound/unlimited}
19:17:11 [hknublau]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/61
19:17:19 [Arnaud]
present+ ericP
19:17:34 [Arnaud]
issue-61
19:17:34 [trackbot]
issue-61 -- Direction of individual scoping: sh:nodeShape vs. sh:individualScope -- open
19:17:34 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/61
19:17:58 [pfps]
q+
19:18:06 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:18:25 [Dimitris]
pfps: do we have individual scope?
19:18:37 [Dimitris]
hknublau: we only have class scope and filtering
19:19:30 [Dimitris]
... for consistency we could link from the scope to the intances but it is not easy
19:19:36 [Dimitris]
+q
19:19:40 [simonstey]
+1 to holger's point
19:19:45 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
19:20:35 [pfps]
pointing from the shape to the individual is in essence a kind of scoping, so you don't need a whole new kind of relationship
19:21:31 [Dimitris]
dimitris: I would prefer reverse relations or link to an intermediate node
19:22:01 [Dimitris]
*example ex:resA sh:nodeShape [ ex:scope http://dbpedia.org ex:shape ex:Shape]
19:23:49 [Dimitris]
hknublau: it is not easy to work on linked data
19:24:11 [Dimitris]
... this triple is shows up in all forms and it is annoying
19:25:43 [Dimitris]
dimitris: that is why I don't like mixing data with validation context
19:26:11 [Dimitris]
arnaud: let's leave this and Dimitris can write an email on this
19:26:26 [Arnaud]
issue-64
19:26:26 [trackbot]
issue-64 -- Should the Core vocabulary support datatype facets such as sh:minInclusive and sh:maxLength? -- open
19:26:26 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/64
19:27:26 [pfps]
Sure, let's have a coherent set of stuff in the core
19:28:01 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-64, adding minInclusive/minExclusive/maxInclusive/maxExclusive, minLength/maxLength (XSD also has xsd:length), pattern (regex)
19:28:22 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-64, adding minInclusive/minExclusive/maxInclusive/maxExclusive, minLength/maxLength (dropping xsd:length), pattern (regex)
19:28:23 [pfps]
+1
19:28:30 [Dimitris]
+1
19:28:33 [BartvanLeeuwen]
+1
19:28:34 [hknublau]
+1
19:28:39 [simonstey]
+1
19:29:11 [Dimitris]
* I did not hear Eric*
19:29:44 [Dimitris]
ericP: on the ShEx survey there was equal support for xsd facets
19:29:50 [Labra]
0.5
19:29:51 [TallTed]
+1
19:30:08 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-64, adding minInclusive/minExclusive/maxInclusive/maxExclusive, minLength/maxLength (dropping xsd:length), pattern (regex)
19:30:34 [BartvanLeeuwen]
thx and bye
19:30:58 [Dimitris]
arnuad: thank you and see you next week
19:31:45 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:31:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:31:45 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
19:31:53 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:31:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:31:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:31:54 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items