17:55:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:55:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/08/13-shapes-irc
17:55:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:55:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:55:46 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:55:46 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:55:47 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:55:47 <trackbot> Date: 13 August 2015
17:55:52 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
17:56:03 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.08.13
17:56:10 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
17:56:21 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #shapes
17:56:30 <Arnaud> regrets: Dimitris
17:58:06 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
17:58:57 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
17:59:33 <pfps> present+ pfps
18:00:33 <simonstey> present+ simonstey
18:01:13 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:02:29 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:02:39 <Arnaud> present+ hknublau
18:03:28 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
18:03:57 <Arnaud> present +labra
18:04:02 <Arnaud> present+ labra
18:04:08 <Arnaud> present+ TallTed
18:04:14 <Arnaud> present+ aryman
18:05:22 <simonstey> Topic: minutes of last week
18:05:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 6 August Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/06-shapes-minutes.html
18:05:30 <pfps> minutes look fine to me
18:05:41 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 6 August Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/06-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:13 <simonstey> Arnaud: iovka hasn't answered mails reg. constraints for the f2f meeting yet
18:07:33 <simonstey> ... will come back to this once she answers her mails
18:07:35 <simonstey> Topic: SHACL FPWD
18:08:07 <simonstey> Arnaud: we should get a FPWD of the spec out rather sooner than later
18:09:10 <simonstey> ... there is interest of people outside the WG to have a first look at the FPWD
18:10:57 <pfps> q+
18:11:01 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:11:14 <simonstey> ... although we've not solved all open issues we could still publish whatever we have at this point. of course under the right disclaimer that we have decided to use this approach as our main approach but are open for feedback
18:11:42 <simonstey> pfps: there are still some issues that are present for months now that must be solved before publishing a FPWD
18:12:14 <simonstey> ... nominclature is still broken too
18:12:19 <hknublau> q+
18:12:23 <aryman> q+
18:12:53 <hknublau> q-
18:12:59 <simonstey> Arnaud: holes in the spec e.g. recursion should be stated within a disclaimer
18:13:29 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:14:10 <simonstey> aryman: before publishing the document we might want to think of adding a 2nd editor to the draft
18:14:23 <simonstey> ... e.g. peter if he has time
18:15:19 <simonstey> ... we should wrap up the discussion under ISSUE-66 regarding recursion
18:16:10 <simonstey> hknublau: I would also like to see the spec published sooner than later, but my hands are tied too
18:16:29 <simonstey> ... I can't just make changes
18:16:30 <pfps> holger has brought up a very important point - there is not enough work being done in the working group
18:17:15 <simonstey> Arnaud: you can do whatever you want with the spec iff your changes are only editorial
18:17:43 <TallTed> q+
18:18:59 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
18:19:15 <simonstey> pfps: the document is completely broken and I would love to be the editor but I can't be it for the current document
18:19:49 <simonstey> TallTed: according to peter there are a lot of inconsistencies in the document
18:20:48 <aryman> q+
18:21:07 <simonstey> ... pointing at inconsistencies and fixing them requires different amounts of work
18:21:41 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:21:47 <pfps> q+
18:22:18 <simonstey> Arnaud: maybe we have to think of how to fix the draft in a way that it doesn't suck as much rather than just postponing its publication
18:22:20 <TallTed> "At Risk" is an entirely viable flag...
18:22:28 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:23:52 <simonstey> pfps: I would rather get us away from the iceberg rather than try to rearrange the chairs on the titanic
18:24:10 <simonstey> ... I want not to be editor of the document in its current form
18:24:51 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
18:25:14 <aryman> q+
18:25:24 <simonstey> ... I think I've proposed an approach that solves most of the issues so why should I then try to fix an approach that is completly broken
18:25:44 <simonstey> TallTed: maybe because you are the only one who sees those issues
18:27:22 <simonstey> pfps: there are some passages in the document that counter others in the document
18:27:27 <kcoyle> present+ kcoyle
18:27:37 <simonstey> ... especially wrt. to the nominclature
18:28:15 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:28:24 <simonstey> ... if someone cares for the current nominclature they should try to fix those issues
18:28:51 <hknublau> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65
18:29:19 <simonstey> aryman: peter, do you have also proposed a possible solution for your issues or were you just pointing them out because they might be too difficult to solve?
18:30:04 <simonstey> pfps: I'm claiming that someone should have already looked into this issue
18:30:46 <simonstey> pfps: I'm not the editor of the spec, should I make changes then?
18:31:10 <simonstey> ... people are not seeing the underlying problem that I'm seeing
18:31:18 <hknublau> q+
18:31:47 <simonstey> ... someone else should put effort into this WG except me
18:32:43 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish current editor's draft, making it clear that this is  still very much work in progress and that feedback is requested on the  general direction
18:32:52 <hknublau> q-
18:33:06 <simonstey> ... 1) the WG could decide that the current draft is suitable for publication 2) they could identify minor changes that should be made to get it published 3) there are major changes that should be made
18:33:15 <aryman> -1
18:33:18 <pfps> -1 because the document has not had any review form the working group
18:34:21 <simonstey> +0.5
18:34:25 <pfps> I agree strongly with Aurhur
18:35:27 <simonstey> aryman: we need a certain period of time to be able to review the document
18:36:06 <simonstey> ... a minimum of 2 weeks should be sufficient
18:36:26 <pfps> The document has gone through dramatic changes since I last looked at in detail
18:36:39 <simonstey> Arnaud: what about trying to publish it before our f2f meeting i.e. 3rd of september
18:38:07 <simonstey> TallTed: there are two classes of problems we might have to face -> 1) we have to completely rework that before being able to publish it 2) we have to somehow fix this issue
18:38:25 <simonstey> ... it's just a FPWD and not a recommendation
18:39:11 <simonstey> Arnaud: people outside the WG are talking on a much higher level than the issues we are discussing about
18:39:15 <aryman> q+
18:39:45 <simonstey> ... I claim that the current draft is sufficient enough to retrieve that kind of feedback
18:40:08 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:40:54 <simonstey> aryman: In our requirements we clearly stated that understanding SPARQL should not be required
18:40:55 <hknublau> q+
18:42:19 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:42:36 <simonstey> Arnaud: if the core is too limited than in practice people will just use templates and would have to use SPARQL
18:43:12 <TallTed> I have just edited the nomenclature issue to make it such...
18:43:13 <TallTed> issue-65?
18:43:13 <trackbot> issue-65 -- Consistency and cohesiveness of nomenclature (e.g., shapes, scopes, and constraints) -- open
18:43:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65
18:43:21 <simonstey> hknublau: we need to take external feedback with a grain of salt here, I'm definitly interested in receiving such feedback
18:43:53 <simonstey> ... I'm happy to add additional features to the core language if one would come up with them
18:44:16 <TallTed> "SHACL recipes"
18:45:24 <simonstey> Arnaud: I do think that we need a core that is able to address ~80% of our use cases
18:45:54 <pfps> I think that the current core meets the uses that Nuance wants to use
18:46:30 <pfps> q+
18:46:34 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:47:08 <simonstey> ... peter, we can certainly try to solve issues you've raised but you can't except us to fix them in a way you like if we have no insights in the problems you have with the document
18:47:55 <simonstey> pfps: I voted to use the document in its current form
18:48:40 <hknublau> q+
18:49:04 <simonstey> ... I didn't try to transform this document to look like my proposal but to transform it into something that could actually be used
18:49:17 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:49:29 <simonstey> I'm working with holger's implementation and they actually do work
18:49:33 <simonstey> s
18:50:37 <simonstey> Arnaud: there are two sides here, peter is frustrated that his issues are not going to be addressed
18:50:49 <pfps> the spec (at least as I reviewed it) goes into an infinite loop in spots - is there an implementation that works this way?
18:50:51 <simonstey> ... and other are frustrated because they don't see those issues
18:51:12 <hknublau> I will look at issue 65
18:52:17 <simonstey> Arnaud: my proposal is to give people 3 weeks to have a look at the spec, read it and figure out if there are parts of it that would prohibit it of being published as a FPWD
18:52:40 <hknublau> @pfps: Fixes to the recursion issue have been proposed but I am not entitled to update the spec until they are not resolved
18:52:57 <simonstey> Topic: ISSUE-72
18:53:14 <Arnaud> issue-72
18:53:14 <trackbot> issue-72 -- Qualified Cardinality Restrictions -- open
18:53:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/72
18:53:34 <pfps> close the issue - QCRs are good
18:53:37 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-72, adopting sh:qualifiedValueShape as currently specified in editor's draft
18:53:38 <simonstey> Arnaud: I would like to have opinions from people regarding this issue
18:53:46 <hknublau> +1
18:53:54 <aryman> q+
18:53:55 <pfps> +1
18:54:03 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:54:21 <simonstey> +1
18:54:47 <pfps> a QCR is something like "two children who are lawyers" without saying that all children are lawyers
18:55:51 <pfps> with QCRs you can say "two children who are lawyers and two children who are doctors"
18:56:18 <simonstey> hknublau: is counting values of properties that have a certain shape; e.g. property parent -> a constraint would make sure that one parent object is male and one is a female
18:56:21 <kcoyle> +1
18:56:22 <TallTed> +1
18:56:29 <aryman> +1
18:56:45 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-72, adopting sh:qualifiedValueShape as currently specified in editor's draft
18:56:51 <simonstey> Topic: ISSUE-58
18:56:54 <simonstey> issue-58
18:56:54 <trackbot> issue-58 -- Signalling closed shapes/Defining closed shapes -- open
18:56:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/58
18:57:09 <pfps> the design in the document is fine by me
18:57:30 <Arnaud> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ClosedShape
18:57:45 <kcoyle> q+
18:57:59 <pfps> it would be nice to get some ShEx person to approve the design
18:58:08 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:58:18 <aryman> q+
18:58:36 <simonstey> kcoyle: I'm wondering how this interfers with closing issue 44
18:58:58 <simonstey> issue-44
18:58:58 <trackbot> issue-44 -- How to express dependencies between graphs -- open
18:58:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/44
19:00:24 <pfps> This is independent of graph-shape association or shape-node association
19:00:50 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:02:09 <simonstey> aryman: in the ShEx-inspired Core SHACL Semantics document they allow you to specify more finegrained notions of open shapes.
<aryman> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/
<aryman> This is defined in the grammar rule: OpenShape ::= 'open' InclPropSet? ShapeExpr
19:02:10 <pfps> oops - I forgot that there are exclusions on properties in 4.5 - I think that there should be no such exclusions
19:02:14 <pfps> q+
19:03:30 <simonstey> TallTed: what seems semi--open in shex is a closed shape in SHACL
19:03:31 <kcoyle> q+
19:03:32 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:03:57 <simonstey> pfps: what shex has is the notion of exluding certain properties
19:04:34 <hknublau> q+
19:04:36 <simonstey> ... there are bits of shex that cannot be expressed in shacl as of now
19:05:00 <TallTed> +1 to that
19:05:05 <simonstey> ... type and nodeshape are important in this respect
19:05:14 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:06:02 <pfps> the current document has exceptions for rdf:type and sh:nodeShape - I don't think that there should be these exclusions - if the effect is wanted you can just put in a vacuous constraint on rdf:type or whateven
19:06:09 <pfps> s/whateven/whatever/
19:06:13 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:06:52 <simonstey> aryman: I think naming them closed/open shapes aligns with CWA and OWA
19:07:06 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jul/0114.html
19:07:57 <pfps> adding in the equivalent of the ShEx ignored properties is fine
19:08:45 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-58, as proposed by Holger in his email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jul/0114.html
19:08:50 <hknublau> +1
19:08:53 <simonstey> hknublau: I've proposed a possible suggestion to the issue of exluding rdf:type/sh:nodeshape from evaluation of closed shapes in previous linked mail
19:08:54 <pfps> +1
19:08:55 <simonstey> +1
19:08:57 <TallTed> +1
19:09:07 <aryman> +1
19:09:09 <kcoyle> +0
19:10:04 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-58, as proposed by Holger in his email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jul/0114.html
19:10:21 <simonstey> Topic: ISSUE-53
19:10:24 <simonstey> issue-53
19:10:24 <trackbot> issue-53 -- Multi-occurrence of the same predicate -- open
19:10:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/53
19:10:57 <pfps> multioccurence is adequately handled in the current design - differently from ShEx but that's fine by me
19:11:04 <pfps> is there a pointer to the pushback??
19:11:25 <aryman> q+
19:11:41 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:12:45 <pfps> multioccurence is currently conjunction - in (some versions of) ShEx it is more like addition
19:12:54 <Arnaud> labra?
19:13:09 <hknublau> I see no problem with the current draft.
19:13:11 <pfps> q+
19:13:13 <simonstey> Arnaud: I've put it on for discussion because Holger's email started with "if I understood jose's intention correctly.."
19:13:29 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:14:00 <simonstey> aryman: maybe our concept of qualifiedcardinalityconstraints should be generalized to be able to work for any constraints
19:14:48 <aryman> q+
19:15:23 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:16:12 <simonstey> pfps: QCRs as handled by the current spec work just fine for specifying such kinds of constraints
19:16:28 <pfps> the glitch before was that most conditions were like "between 2 and 3 children and all of them doctors"  combining conditions like these can be a bit silly
19:16:34 <pfps> yes, the current design is fine
19:17:31 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-53 as addressed by the current editor's draft with sh:qualifiedValueShape
19:17:46 <hknublau> +1
19:17:47 <pfps> +1
19:17:50 <simonstey> +1
19:17:54 <aryman> +0.5
19:18:02 <TallTed> +1
19:18:03 <kcoyle> +0
19:18:22 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-53 as addressed by the current editor's draft with sh:qualifiedValueShape
19:18:55 <hknublau> straw poll on 23?
19:19:01 <aryman> q+
19:19:07 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:19:40 <simonstey> aryman: I thought the resolution to that issue was that people could do so if they want to do it
19:19:48 <simonstey> Arnaud: there was no such resolution
19:20:02 <simonstey> Topic: ISSUE-23
19:20:09 <simonstey> ISSUE-23
19:20:09 <trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- Shapes, classes and punning -- open
19:20:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:20:42 <pfps> the question is whether there is something special about a class that is also a shape
19:21:17 <simonstey> Arnaud: the current draft allows different kinds of association
19:21:25 <aryman> my understanding is that there is nothing special about a Shape also being a Class
19:21:38 <simonstey> ... attach it to a class, to an individual, ...
19:21:48 <pfps> q+
19:21:56 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:22:32 <simonstey> pfps: there are a whole lot of reasons not to allow shapes being classes
19:23:04 <simonstey> ... it turns SHACL into a modelling language where we have documents that look like RDFS documents but aren't
19:23:27 <pfps> the real bad thing is that SHACL will then have documents that look like RDFS but don't act like RDFS
19:24:43 <simonstey> Arnaud: we have to definitly look into this issue if this interfers with RDFS inference
19:24:44 <aryman> q+
19:24:48 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:25:09 <simonstey> aryman: is there any special treatment for shapes being classes?
19:25:35 <simonstey> hknublau: yes, if there is a type link pointing to a shape this will be interpreted as sh:nodeshape
19:25:50 <Arnaud> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scopeClass
19:28:52 <simonstey> aryman: if you have a shape defined i.e. as shex then you don't have it as rdf triples
19:29:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23, as currently specified in editor's draft, allowing the rdf:type to be used to associate a shape, which is also a class, to a node
19:31:15 <hknublau> +1
19:31:45 <pfps> One of the problematic aspects here is that special things need to be done, e.g., state that classes are subclasses of rdfs:Resource.  This is a consequence of RDFS, but  not here.
19:31:47 <pfps> -1
19:31:52 <simonstey> Arnaud: you have a node and a type arc that points to a class, if this class is then a shape too then those constraints must hold for that node
19:32:48 <hknublau> @pfps, no the subclass triple is not needed
19:33:03 <pfps> Then why are they there?
19:33:04 <hknublau> @pfps neither do I see anything else that violates RDFS
19:33:13 <hknublau> I already exaplained this in email
19:33:13 <kcoyle> +0
19:33:29 <simonstey> TallTed: since those bits are just of contextual nature I don't think the concers matter here
19:33:31 <simonstey> +1
19:33:33 <aryman> +0
19:33:41 <TallTed> +1
19:34:18 <hknublau> (Thanks to those who don’t really care to vote 0 and not -1 on this, it’s important to me)
19:34:57 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:34:57 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:34:57 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
19:35:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:35:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/13-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:35:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:35:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items