IRC log of shapes on 2015-08-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:57:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:57:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/08/20-shapes-irc
17:57:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:57:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
17:57:23 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:57:23 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:57:24 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:57:24 [trackbot]
Date: 20 August 2015
18:00:24 [Arnaud]
present+ Arnaud
18:00:31 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:00:54 [simonstey]
present+ simonstey
18:01:05 [kcoyle]
present+ kcoyle
18:01:26 [hsolbrig]
hsolbrig has joined #shapes
18:02:09 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
18:03:43 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
18:04:42 [hsolbrig]
scribenic: hsoblrig
18:04:46 [hsolbrig]
scribenic: hsolbrig
18:04:50 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.08.20
18:04:54 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
18:05:03 [hsolbrig]
scribenick: hsolbrig
18:05:23 [hknublau]
webex is not working for me right now.
18:05:26 [Dimitris]
trying to connect to webex and getting errors
18:05:58 [Arnaud]
present+ hsolbrig
18:06:15 [Arnaud]
present+ ericP
18:06:20 [Dimitris]
present+ dimitris
18:07:50 [Dimitris]
holger I just made it, maybe you can try again
18:08:31 [Arnaud]
hknublau, are you joining?
18:09:25 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/F2F4
18:09:34 [hsolbrig]
@arnaud: please check the wiki FTF list and make sure the expected attendance list is accurate
18:09:35 [hknublau]
I dialed in via skype now.
18:09:42 [hknublau]
present+ hknublau
18:10:09 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 13 August Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/13-shapes-minutes.html
18:10:27 [ericP]
+!
18:10:29 [ericP]
+1
18:10:41 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 13 August Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/13-shapes-minutes.html
18:12:34 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: the FTF needs to start no later than 10 because lunch is fixed at 12:00 PM -- we can meet until 7:00 PM or so
18:14:07 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: pfps raised question about what documents are to be published, hknublau suggests 3, but pfps only wants 1
18:14:47 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: 3 documents -- primary, rdf turtle file and generated document
18:15:09 [kcoyle]
q+
18:15:15 [hsolbrig]
... what should we publish - one, two or all three?
18:15:28 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:16:09 [hsolbrig]
kcoyle: do they have to be published together? They will all be available?
18:16:45 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: there are normative references from the primary to the other documents
18:17:36 [simonstey]
q+
18:17:39 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: it is possible to publish a document with references to working drafts, but would prefer all three. Can everyone review all three before publishing?
18:17:40 [Arnaud]
ack simonstey
18:18:34 [hsolbrig]
simonstey: I think we should publish the vocabulary with the main document, so all three should be published together.
18:18:34 [pfps]
present+ pfps
18:18:42 [pfps]
q+
18:18:49 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:19:22 [hsolbrig]
pfps: adding the other two documents is going to be a lot more reviewing...
18:19:58 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: the turtle and vocabulary are generated together. If you trust the transform it is only two documents
18:20:55 [hsolbrig]
simonstey: what would it mean if we just published the draft?
18:21:56 [hsolbrig]
simonstey: If we published the main draft and the vocabulary later, that would also work
18:23:23 [pfps]
There is information in the turtle file that does not appear in the vocabulary reference document
18:23:40 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: we will stick with the current schedule and then decide whether we feel comfortable publishing everything or just the first one
18:24:09 [pfps]
committed to reviewing what?
18:24:14 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: do we have two people who can commit to reviewing the spec?
18:25:02 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: there is information in the turtle that aren't in vocab reference
18:25:18 [Arnaud]
s/arnaud/pfps/
18:26:14 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: lets focus on editors draft for the time being
18:26:48 [hsolbrig]
... due date is in two weeks from now. Before FTF meeting
18:27:01 [simonstey]
<-
18:27:02 [pfps]
action pfps: review http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/
18:27:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-28 - Review http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/ [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2015-08-27].
18:27:11 [hsolbrig]
pfps: I can commit
18:28:01 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: I think arthur commited as well. We should have 2 or 3
18:29:23 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: The test suite. Issues would better be illustrated with test and it could narrow down discussion. We need to have a couple of people working on the test suite...
18:29:58 [simonstey]
afaik holger is actually doing this
18:30:20 [hknublau]
These tests currently work: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features
18:31:10 [ericP]
https://github.com/shexSpec/shexTest/ https://github.com/shexSpec/test-suite/ and docs at http://shexspec.github.io/test-suite/
18:32:35 [hsolbrig]
ericp: The tests are written in ShEx, but Jose has a converter to SHACL
18:33:08 [hsolbrig]
ericp: We can convert them to SHACL.
18:34:24 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: what do the tests in the repo do?
18:34:45 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: manifest points to ttl file and checks output for T/F or specific results
18:35:23 [hsolbrig]
... covers interesting features but are not exhaustive
18:36:27 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: when we get to the FTF we should have someone ready to walk us through the suite, how to commit, etc.
18:37:12 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-79, ISSUE-80, ISSUE-81, ISSUE-82
18:37:27 [pfps]
I'm fine with opening them all
18:37:31 [hsolbrig]
eric: two implementations tested the proposed tests
18:37:51 [kcoyle]
+1 open all
18:38:03 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-79, ISSUE-80, ISSUE-81, ISSUE-82
18:38:52 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: Issue 79 came with a resolution.
18:39:12 [simonstey]
ISSUE-79
18:39:12 [trackbot]
ISSUE-79 -- Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration -- raised
18:39:12 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/79
18:39:16 [hknublau]
q+
18:39:23 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:42:08 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-79, per Holger's proposal
18:42:17 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: Issue 79 allows logic to be reused and repurposed in different places
18:42:26 [pfps]
so this is syntactic sugar for those few who write templates
18:42:30 [hknublau]
+1
18:42:39 [simonstey]
+1
18:42:42 [pfps]
0
18:42:42 [kcoyle]
+1
18:42:46 [hsolbrig]
+1
18:42:47 [Dimitris]
+0.5
18:42:48 [ericP]
+0
18:43:00 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-79, per Holger's proposal
18:43:30 [hsolbrig]
TOPIC: ISSUE-76
18:44:18 [hknublau]
q+
18:44:32 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: involves execution order. pfps says it shouldn't matter, kcoyle didn't get a response from dc-architecture list
18:45:04 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:45:09 [hsolbrig]
kcoyle: without the "friendly front end" we probably won't get much response... ShEx?
18:45:39 [Arnaud]
issue-76
18:45:39 [trackbot]
issue-76 -- Specifying execution order and commutativity of AND and OR -- open
18:45:39 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/76
18:45:51 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: two topics -- syntax and semantics. Syntax, we need to store in an RDF list because people expect order to be preserved...
18:46:02 [pfps]
q+
18:46:47 [hsolbrig]
... whether we want to do it semantically, the change should be small either way. If we change it, I would like to see a complete proposal
18:46:51 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:47:19 [ericP]
q+ to ask if the shape level is an AND written as a repeated property while any nested ANDs are written as a list
18:47:33 [hsolbrig]
pfps: a lot of things aren't ordered, so surprised that holger wants this one to be
18:48:07 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
18:48:07 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to ask if the shape level is an AND written as a repeated property while any nested ANDs are written as a list
18:48:28 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: you would enter something on the screen vs. rdfs list
18:48:37 [pfps]
by the same logic, entering constraints in one order should produce the same order, but that is not the case currently
18:49:17 [hsolbrig]
pfps: ordering of AND's matter -- they produce different results
18:49:47 [hsolbrig]
@arnaud: loosing scribe
18:49:56 [hsolbrig]
s/loosing/losing/
18:51:03 [kcoyle]
scribenick kcoyle
18:51:54 [kcoyle]
pfps: in shex there is a complex algebra for and/or, some domination so you can come up with the right answer if you vary the execution order
18:52:19 [Arnaud]
STRAWPOLL: Close ISSUE-76, stating that execution order a) matters, b) does NOT matter
18:52:32 [kcoyle]
... referring to shex member proposal
18:52:47 [hknublau]
q+
18:52:59 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:53:12 [kcoyle]
hknublau: question to Peter: execution order matters with AND
18:53:33 [simonstey]
we are returning a set of error messages
18:53:34 [kcoyle]
pfps: if first produces error...
18:54:08 [pfps]
users will care when things that can be fast take a very long tim
18:54:16 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: as a user, I don't care - if behavior between engines is different (e.g. reports one error not the other) - just matters that they produce an error
18:54:30 [kcoyle]
... even if sequence is different
18:54:49 [simonstey]
q+
18:54:53 [kcoyle]
pfps: users will care if what should be fast takes a long time
18:55:04 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: that's a quality of implementation question
18:55:25 [simonstey]
q-
18:55:28 [kcoyle]
pfps: depends on how trivial each branch is; common in queries; changing order influences execution time
18:56:15 [kcoyle]
simonstey: if execution order doesn't matter, it's up to the tool to optimize, rather than follow an order
18:56:36 [Arnaud]
STRAWPOLL: Close ISSUE-76, stating that execution order a) matters, b) does NOT matter
18:56:41 [pfps]
b
18:56:42 [kcoyle]
back to strawpoll
18:57:00 [simonstey]
a) 0 b) 1
18:57:08 [kcoyle]
a} -.5 b) +1
18:57:27 [pfps]
a) -1, b) +1
18:57:31 [Dimitris]
a)0 b)0
18:57:41 [hknublau]
a) 0 b) 0
18:58:00 [pfps]
q+
18:58:09 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-76, stating that execution order does NOT matter
18:58:12 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:58:49 [kcoyle]
pfps: there is more to worry about if order does not matter; things are clearer if order is fixed
18:59:11 [kcoyle]
+1
18:59:18 [simonstey]
+1
18:59:59 [pfps]
+1
19:00:11 [kcoyle]
pfps: big issue is recursion through negation
19:00:17 [Dimitris]
+0
19:00:24 [hknublau]
0
19:00:46 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-76, stating that execution order does NOT matter
19:01:23 [Arnaud]
issue-65
19:01:23 [trackbot]
issue-65 -- Consistency and cohesiveness of nomenclature (e.g., shapes, scopes, and constraints) -- open
19:01:23 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65
19:02:37 [kcoyle]
terminology cleanup; Peter sent many suggestions in email
19:02:55 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: what is a shape? what is a constraint? these need definitions
19:03:47 [kcoyle]
... options 1) stick to current draft and fix any problems in language or 2) move to Peter's draft definitions
19:04:02 [kcoyle]
... Holger replied: this could set us back some significant time
19:04:23 [kcoyle]
... but now is the best time to make terminology changes, before first public working draft
19:04:59 [hknublau]
q+
19:05:08 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:05:38 [kcoyle]
hknublau: terminology is consistent with shex and shapes
19:05:55 [kcoyle]
... don't see any benefit in changing
19:06:42 [kcoyle]
pfps: current nomenclature conflates shapes and constraints
19:07:02 [kcoyle]
... shapes that are used both as shapes and constraints
19:07:28 [kcoyle]
... shapes class gets used in two places for two purposes
19:07:48 [kcoyle]
... 1) as in shex, and 2) what shex calls a constraint
19:08:22 [kcoyle]
q+
19:08:35 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
19:08:42 [pfps]
it is actually very hard to figure out what is going on in the current editor's draft because the document is very hard to figure out
19:09:26 [kcoyle]
kcoyle: what would it look like if changed
19:10:23 [Arnaud]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Aug/0096.html
19:11:47 [kcoyle]
simonstey: is starting an implementation; used to the terminology, and doesn't see it has a big problem
19:12:27 [kcoyle]
Dimitris: had some concerns in using shapes as classes, but haven't had time to read Peter's proposal
19:12:57 [hknublau]
q+
19:13:46 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: shape vs. class orthogonal; shape vs. constraint is more of a problem
19:13:55 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:14:21 [kcoyle]
hknublau: counter-proposal needs to include turtle file and examples
19:15:09 [kcoyle]
... if there is a problem, then need to see explicit examples
19:15:30 [kcoyle]
... but not worth the effort
19:15:59 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: paraphrasing Peter - better nomenclature would make editing of standard easier
19:16:38 [kcoyle]
hknublau: draft now has appendix with terminology; but these are editorial issues, not technical issues
19:16:43 [pfps]
q+
19:16:50 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:16:51 [kcoyle]
... but changing names is a huge amount of work
19:17:16 [kcoyle]
pfps: Holger is apparently still working on document that is still under review.
19:17:50 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: document is stable; changes are being announced, only done after resolutions
19:19:03 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: time to review = document is frozen; but announced changes are reasonable
19:19:59 [kcoyle]
pfps: have reviewed half, but not current version
19:20:26 [kcoyle]
hknublau: what has changed?: terminology consistency, editorial issues, nothing substantive
19:23:30 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: I did intend for the document to be frozen; however, if there are specific issues with documented changes, people can catch up.
19:25:13 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: proceed; caution to Holger not to make broad changes to document; Peter continue review of version he has
19:25:37 [kcoyle]
pfps: working on 10 August version
19:26:40 [kcoyle]
Arnaud: re: nomenclature issue... Peter needs to produce an example to illustration change
19:27:14 [simonstey]
+1
19:29:32 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:29:32 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:29:32 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
19:29:40 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:29:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/20-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:29:41 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:29:41 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/08/20-shapes-actions.rdf :
19:29:41 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pfps to review http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/ [1]
19:29:41 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/08/20-shapes-irc#T18-27-02