17:58:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:58:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/08/06-shapes-irc
17:58:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:58:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:58:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:58:29 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:58:30 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:58:30 <trackbot> Date: 06 August 2015
17:58:34 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
17:59:47 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
17:59:50 <kcoyle> present+
18:00:00 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:00:04 <pfps> present+ pfps
18:00:09 <kcoyle> present+ kcoyle
18:01:32 <Arnaud> regrets: simonstey
18:01:47 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:02:08 <Dimitris> present+ dimitris
18:02:18 <Arnaud> present+ hknublau
18:02:21 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:02:28 <Arnaud> present+ labra
18:04:13 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:05:03 <Arnaud> present +aryman
18:07:42 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.08.06
18:08:22 <Arnaud> present+ TallTed
<hknublau> Topic: Admin
18:10:00 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 30 July Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/30-shapes-minutes.html
18:10:01 <pfps> minutes look fine to me
18:10:01 <hknublau> scribenick: hknublau
18:10:15 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 30 July Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/30-shapes-minutes.html
<hknublau> Arnaud: F2F is in a month, please, make sure you update the page if there is any change in expected participation
<hknublau> ... looking into the schedule, trying to accommodate for remote participants
18:10:56 <pfps> What are the goals for the F2F?
18:11:42 <pfps> I will not be 9 hours behind - I will be on the EDT then.
18:13:52 <aryman> q+
18:13:54 <kcoyle> 10-6 sounds fine
18:14:02 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:14:12 <hknublau> Arnaud: Discussion about whether we can shift French meeting time to maybe 10 to 6
<hknublau> Arnaud: As for the goals, we should try and close as many issues as possible
<hknublau> ... but also discuss what it will take to get to FPWD
<hknublau> ... as well as discuss other work items like the test suite
18:19:08 <hknublau> Topic: Disposal of raised issues
18:19:12 <pfps> I have no problem opening either of these two issues
18:19:13 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-77: sh:pattern flags, and ISSUE-78: sh:abstract
18:19:21 <pfps> +1
18:19:21 <hknublau> +1
18:19:25 <Dimitris> +1
18:19:37 <kcoyle> +1
18:19:46 <TallTed> +1
18:20:09 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-77: sh:pattern flags, and ISSUE-78: sh:abstract
18:20:11 <hknublau> (None of them are urgent)
18:20:11 <aryman> +1
18:20:38 <hknublau> Topic: ISSUE-3
18:20:44 <pfps> Eric commented on ISSUE-3
18:21:18 <hknublau> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/3
18:21:26 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-3, specifying that a SHACL processor is invoked  with an RDF dataset (or RDF graph) as its data and a shapes graph for  control, per Holger's email
18:21:38 <pfps> +1
18:21:39 <hknublau> +1
18:21:43 <TallTed> +1
18:21:44 <aryman> +
18:21:47 <aryman> +1
18:21:48 <Dimitris> +1
18:21:53 <Labra> +1
18:22:06 <kcoyle> +1
18:22:16 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-3, specifying that a SHACL processor is invoked  with an RDF dataset (or RDF graph) as its data and a shapes graph for  control, per Holger's email
18:24:09 <hknublau> Topic: ISSUE-26
18:27:05 <trackbot> issue-26 -- Can extensions invoke the high-level language? -- open
18:27:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/26
18:27:33 <hknublau> pfps: One way of reading this is would be putting expressions into the middle of SPARQL code. We probably don’t want this.
18:27:52 <hknublau> … All that is needed in the SPARQL to get back to named shapes.
18:27:59 <aryman> q+
18:28:50 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:28:50 <hknublau> … sh:hasShape is one implementation mechanism.
18:29:34 <hknublau> aryman: Is it true that you can wrap any SHACL string into a named shape?
18:30:11 <pfps> One thing would to allow a, for example, conjunction inside SPARQL code.  Another thing would be to allow only names of shapes inside SPARQL code.
18:30:42 <hknublau> hknublau: I think named shapes are sufficient.
18:30:48 <pfps> Whether the former is more powerful than the later would require a close examination of the current document - I'm not sure what the answer is.
18:31:42 <hknublau> Arnaud: Can we limit this to named shapes?
18:32:22 <hknublau> hknublauc: Any conjunction etc can be wrapped into a named shape if needed.
18:33:06 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-26, stating that extensions can invoke the high-level language referring to named shapes
18:33:16 <hknublau> +1
18:33:23 <kcoyle> +1
18:33:28 <TallTed> +1
18:33:42 <Labra> +0.5
<Arnaud> present+ ericP
18:33:44 <ericP> +0
18:33:49 <Dimitris> +1
18:33:53 <pfps> -0.1 I think that this is going to be OK, but I'm not completely sure
18:34:11 <aryman> +1
18:34:46 <hknublau> pfps: The design is getting more and more complicating. Harder to find gotchas.
18:34:55 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-26, stating that extensions can invoke the high-level language referring to named shapes
18:35:14 <Arnaud> topic: ISSUE-51
18:35:14 <trackbot> issue-51 -- What types of validation results should be returned -- open
18:35:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/51
18:36:32 <hknublau> Arnaud: Dimitris made a suggestion, iterating with Holger on a proposal, then Peter suggested simplification
18:36:47 <pfps> q+
18:37:49 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:38:38 <hknublau> pfps: We are getting more and more stuff packed into the results. Would be much better to only thing to get back is a set of violations.
18:39:23 <hknublau> … handling severity levels etc outside of SHACL
18:39:23 <kcoyle> q+
18:39:28 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:40:03 <hknublau> kcoyle: In that case what do you see SHACL returning? Gradation is needed.
18:40:45 <hknublau> pfps: Example: Each person must have one name. Result is either OK or a set of violations.
18:42:01 <hknublau> … this could be a SPARQL result set.
18:42:27 <hknublau> … no need for Info, Fatal, Error
18:43:16 <hknublau> … controlling code can find the severity itself.
18:43:20 <hknublau> q+
18:44:39 <Dimitris> +q
18:44:42 <hknublau> … start as simple as possible
18:45:28 <hknublau> Arnaud: Then there would not be a way to specify levels per shape
18:45:31 <pfps> The results of trying to validate a shape is just a set of violations - the calling code gets to decide to do what with the violations - the calling code can do this for each shape, or for groups of shapes, or for entire documents of shapes
18:45:45 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:46:32 <pfps> My proposal is to have none of this in the high-level language, not error levels, not severity levels - so no sh:severity, no sh:Error, no sh:Warning, no [lots of other stuff]
18:48:08 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
18:48:36 <hknublau> hknublau: When you invoke the engine on a graph, there may be multiple severity levels coming back.
18:48:44 <pfps> q+
18:48:49 <hknublau> … each violation at least needs a pointer back to the shape.
18:49:56 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:50:09 <hknublau> Arnaud: we should do a straw poll
18:50:36 <hknublau> pfps: Work-around using two shapes, one for warning, one for error
18:51:38 <ericP> q+ to ask about non SPARQL impls
18:52:05 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: a) keep super simple, one type of violation, b) define two or three severty levels, c) define an open model providing with several levels and extensions
18:52:27 <ericP> q-
18:52:40 <hknublau> a: -1 b: 0.5 c: 0.6
18:52:42 <pfps> a +1 b 0 c -1
18:52:49 <aryman> a: 0; b: +1; c: -0.5
18:53:04 <ericP> a:+1 b:0 c:0
18:53:14 <Dimitris> a) -0.5 b) +1 c) 0+
18:53:21 <hknublau> On b) Maybe Info, Warning, Error?
18:53:30 <TallTed> a -0.75, b +0.5, +1
18:53:42 <kcoyle> a: 0.5 b: 0.5 c: ?? (depends on the magical user-friendly language)
18:53:45 <Labra> a: +1, b: 0, c: 0
18:53:55 <pfps> An "informational" violation seems like a contradiction in terms.
18:54:49 <pfps> I like pi and e as severity levels.
18:56:00 <ericP> q+ to ask about the scope of the errors
18:56:07 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:56:07 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask about the scope of the errors
18:56:20 <hknublau> Arnaud: b) seems to be compromise
18:57:31 <pfps> q+ to ask how summarization of results could work?
18:57:40 <hknublau> hknublau: Clarified that each constraint can have severity level
18:58:07 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:58:07 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask how summarization of results could work?
18:58:39 <hknublau> q+
18:59:08 <aryman> q+
18:59:19 <hknublau> q-
18:59:32 <hknublau> pfps: How would we count results
18:59:33 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:00:19 <Arnaud> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-types
19:00:45 <hknublau> aryman: Each engine may stop and return different errors.
19:00:50 <aryman> q+
19:00:58 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:01:21 <hknublau> Arnaud: Do we really need Info messages? They don’t sound like violations.
19:01:22 <pfps> I would hope that SHACL processors would not just give up when it encounters the first information violation
19:01:48 <hknublau> aryman: Info messages are useful, compilers and other tools have them.
19:02:06 <ericP> q+ to say that i don't know how to combine this with multi-occurance
19:02:11 <TallTed> optimal/suboptimal/minor error/major error...
19:02:15 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:02:15 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that i don't know how to combine this with multi-occurance
19:03:35 <hknublau> ericP: Example: I have an Observation with a related Observation and another related property pointing at an Observation
19:04:00 <hknublau> … same predicate expressed twice
19:04:01 <hknublau> q+
19:04:11 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:04:49 <hknublau> hknublau: Results can include subject, predicate, object
19:08:09 <hknublau> … error level is associated with sh:minCount etc
19:08:27 <pfps> q+
19:09:27 <hknublau> ericP: still seeing problems with multi-occurrence
19:09:28 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:10:24 <hknublau> pfps: High level language can only produce Errors
19:11:00 <kcoyle> q+
19:11:08 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:11:28 <hknublau> hknublau: Yes, how else could this be done? Reifying sh:minCount etc?
19:11:39 <aryman> q+
19:11:54 <pfps> I'm finding the current document very mixed up with respect to violation reporting.  Some parts say one thing and some parts say something contradicting that.
19:12:11 <hknublau> kcoyle: There should be support to override this per occurrence
19:12:32 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:13:07 <kcoyle> hknublau: not override -- always related to the occurrence
19:13:11 <hknublau> aryman: I thought we have sh:severity at each constraint
19:13:48 <Arnaud> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-constraints-variables
19:13:52 <Arnaud> example 37
19:13:58 <aryman> look at Example 37
19:14:24 <pfps> But then there is "An sh:Error must be reported if there is no triple that has the focus node as its subject, the sh:predicate as its predicate and the sh:hasValue as its object. Each produced sh:Error must have the focus node as its sh:root and sh:subject, and the sh:predicate as its sh:predicate"
19:14:41 <pfps> q+
19:15:12 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:17:43 <pfps> I think that we are again running into a vocabulary mismatch problem here - there are two meanings of "constraint" being used
19:18:30 <pfps> Well, I'm happy only having sh:Error!
19:18:38 <hknublau> Arnaud: Unless there is a way to override, then the current spec would be too limiting. People want different levels per occurrence
19:19:16 <Dimitris> We should be able to define severity in shapes and facets
19:19:55 <hknublau> Arnaud: Holger, could you send clarification email about this?
19:21:22 <hknublau> … Eric could you clarify your use case in email too?
19:22:31 <pfps> +1
19:22:49 <ericP> sure, and here's an example inline:
19:22:51 <ericP> <BP> a sh:Shape;
19:22:51 <ericP>   sh:property
19:22:51 <ericP>     [ sh:predicate sh:observation; sh:valueShape <SYS>; sh:nodeKind sh:IRI ],
19:22:52 <ericP>     [ sh:predicate sh:observation; sh:valueShape <DIA>; sh:nodeKind sh:IRI ].
19:23:08 <ericP> that's a good model for multi-occurance
19:23:20 <ericP> s/model for/example of/
19:23:58 <hknublau> Arnaud: ISSUE-75 not a big issue
19:24:16 <hknublau> Topic: ISSUE-23 (Punning)
19:24:39 <hknublau> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:25:23 <hknublau> Arnaud: What is currently in the draft is already a compromise between classes and shapes
19:25:34 <kcoyle> q+
19:25:35 <hknublau> … Holger stated punning as a must-have
19:25:43 <pfps> q+
19:25:54 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:27:04 <aryman> q+
19:28:03 <hknublau> kcoyle: Can we leave this out of the language, e.g. owl:sameAs?
19:28:21 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:28:24 <hknublau> Arnaud: Outside would not be standard
19:28:47 <hknublau> pfps: The term punning is probably not related.
19:28:59 <hknublau> … where was this “compromise” discussed?
19:31:22 <pfps> The only relevant resolution I can find is from 18 February, which is "Start from Eric's Revised LDOM proposal, and explore ways to combine shapes and classes such as punning"
19:31:45 <pfps> My understanding is that in this proposal shapes are not classes
19:32:33 <hknublau> pfps: Has it been decided that shapes can be classes?
19:33:02 <hknublau> Arnaud: The draft was accepted as starting point, and this includes sh:ShapeClass.
19:33:25 <hknublau> aryman: We cannot prevent people from making a shape also a class.
19:33:50 <hknublau> … impacts sh:scopeClass
19:34:12 <pfps> The editor's draft has been accepted as a starting point but doesn't  mean agreement to particular bits of it
19:35:09 <hknublau> Arnaud: Credits to Holger for working on a compromise.
20:16:00 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
20:30:50 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
20:34:55 <hknublau> hknublau has left #shapes
21:07:09 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #shapes
23:27:39 <Zakim> Zakim has left #shapes