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
<Dimitris> topic: Admin
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
<Dimitris> topic: Disposal of ISSUE-5: Resource Shape Association
18:07:36 <Dimitris> Arnaud: 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> topic: ISSUE-3: How is a shape associated with a graph?
 <Dimitris> arnaud: holger also said in email that we could close issue-3 for the same reason
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> topic: ISSUE-65: A consistent and cohesive definition of shapes, scopes, and constraints
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> arnaud: 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, unless someone would rather tackle a different one
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> topic: ISSUE-37: Naming of node kind facet
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> topic: ISSUE-59: What are the default values for cardinalities?
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> topic: ISSUE-61: Direction of individual scoping: sh:nodeShape vs. sh:individualScope
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> topic: ISSUE-64: Should the Core vocabulary support datatype facets such as sh:minInclusive and sh:maxLength?
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