IRC log of shapes on 2015-09-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:55:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:55:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/03-shapes-irc
17:55:09 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:55:09 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
17:55:11 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:55:11 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:55:12 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:55:12 [trackbot]
Date: 03 September 2015
17:56:12 [kcoyle]
kcoyle has joined #shapes
18:00:08 [Arnaud]
present+ Arnaud
18:00:23 [Arnaud]
present+ kcoyle, pfps
18:01:40 [hknublau]
present+ hknublau
18:02:29 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:03:08 [Arnaud]
present+ ericp, TallTed, Dimitris
18:05:26 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
18:05:30 [pfps]
scribenick pfps
18:06:15 [Arnaud]
Dimitris, are you calling back?
18:06:30 [Dimitris]
yes, I cannot hear anything
18:06:38 [pfps]
Topic: Admin
18:07:33 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 27 August Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/27-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:56 [pfps]
the minutes are a fair record of what happened
18:09:32 [pfps]
I find that the working group has been making resolutions during meeting without any advance notice.
18:12:43 [pfps]
I object to the closing of ISSUE-74 last week even though I had expressed regrets before the agenda was sent out
18:14:26 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 27 August Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/08/27-shapes-minutes.html, noting objection from Peter on reolution of ISSUE-74
18:14:36 [pfps]
s/reolution/resolution/
18:14:55 [pfps]
arnaud: next meeting
18:15:22 [pfps]
arnaud: F2F in France, agenda has has minor changes
18:16:22 [pfps]
arnaud: remote participation will be via WebEx and IRC, as usual
18:16:33 [pfps]
there might be different codes
18:16:46 [pfps]
eric: I'll check out the situation
18:17:08 [pfps]
Topic: Disposal of Raised Issues
18:17:16 [pfps]
arnaud: ISSUE-84
18:17:27 [Arnaud]
issue-84
18:17:27 [trackbot]
issue-84 -- Constraint to limit IRIs of focus nodes to a given enumeration (similar to owl:oneOf) -- raised
18:17:27 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/84
18:17:47 [pfps]
holger: no current notion of enumerated values
18:17:58 [kcoyle]
q+
18:18:05 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:18:08 [pfps]
holger: only related feature is allowed values
18:18:47 [pfps]
kcoyle: can the enumerations be anything, e.g., literals
18:19:05 [pfps]
holger: as these are for focus nodes, only IRIs make sense
18:19:33 [pfps]
kcoyle: but don't literals make sense as well
18:19:57 [pfps]
holger: no, the only thing that makes sense are IRIs, not blank nodes or literals
18:20:15 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-84: Allowed IRIs
18:20:19 [hknublau]
+1
18:20:24 [pfps]
I'm find with opening the issue
18:20:25 [pfps]
+1
18:20:29 [Dimitris]
+1
18:20:40 [pfps]
s/find/fine/
18:21:07 [pfps]
eric: the short name should be changed
18:21:26 [pfps]
holger: if anyone has a better name, go ahead and change it
18:21:34 [pfps]
arnaud: maybe we should try to find a better name
18:21:59 [pfps]
arnaud: eric do you have a suggestion?
18:22:10 [pfps]
eric: ...
18:22:17 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-84: Constraint to limit IRIs of focus nodes to a given enumeration (similar to owl:oneOf)
18:22:56 [pfps]
eric: "an enumerated set of legal focus nodes"
18:24:05 [pfps]
Topic: SHACL Spec Review
18:24:23 [pfps]
arnaud: the idea was to look at the spec and see whether they think it can be publised as a FPWD
18:25:23 [pfps]
arnaud: what should be done with the feedback sent to the mailing list?
18:25:58 [pfps]
arnaud: peter is objecting to publication so putting forward a resolution now is not usefu
18:26:25 [pfps]
arnaud: there have been changes to the spec since the reviews
18:26:30 [pfps]
q+
18:26:37 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:27:43 [pfps]
pfps: both Arthur's and my review are for an out-of-date version of the document
18:28:03 [pfps]
pfps: so how can the current version of the document be published?
18:28:46 [pfps]
holger: there is a frozen version that has been saved
18:29:10 [pfps]
q+
18:29:28 [pfps]
holger: I am editing the current version
18:32:26 [pfps]
ack pfps
18:32:42 [pfps]
pfps: I'm confused as to what my review is for?
18:33:01 [pfps]
arnaud: the goal was to try to get agreement to publish a FPWD
18:34:00 [pfps]
pfps: at some point we should be publishing something and I thought that I was reviewing something that was going to be published
18:34:18 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #shapes
18:35:03 [pfps]
arnaud: do you agree with publishing what you agreed as a FPWD
18:35:07 [pfps]
pfps: hell no
18:35:35 [pfps]
arnaud: so the process would be to determine what it would take for you to be OK with publishing the document
18:35:59 [TallTed]
q+
18:36:50 [pfps]
pfps: in my opinion there needs to be a complete rewrite of the document and a complete review
18:36:56 [TallTed]
ack q+
18:37:12 [pfps]
arnaud: who is going to do the rewrite?
18:38:03 [pfps]
ted: we are losing the point of what this is - this is a FPWD not a candidate recommendation
18:38:28 [pfps]
ted: there could be a complete rewrite after first publication
18:39:07 [pfps]
ted: this is only a heartbeat
18:39:18 [pfps]
q+
18:40:18 [pfps]
arnaud: it appears that peter thinks that the document is not publishable
18:40:50 [pfps]
pfps: my most serious comment is that I feel that the document does not reflect the state of the document
18:41:46 [Arnaud1]
Arnaud1 has joined #shapes
18:42:54 [pfps]
pfps: the main example in the document uses shapes as classes, which is controversial, in my opinion
18:43:48 [pfps]
arnaud: a complete rewrite is ...
18:44:16 [Arnaud1]
not practical
18:49:46 [pfps]
pfps: I spent a lot of time looking at the document and found lots of problems - I don't think that the document reflects the thinking of the working group, the document has lots of technical flaws, and it does not present an understandable view of SHACL
18:49:59 [pfps]
holger: ...
18:50:45 [pfps]
arnaud: anyone is welcome to create a branch and make changes
18:50:49 [pfps]
q+
18:51:01 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
18:51:16 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:51:48 [pfps]
pfps: yes, having more people contribute to the document would be useful
18:52:23 [pfps]
arnaud: who is going to do the rewrite?
18:53:05 [pfps]
pfps: I'm not going to do it.
18:53:45 [pfps]
pfps: I've done a review of the document and put forward a number of changes that I think are needed and a number of flaws that I see in it
18:54:08 [pfps]
arnaud: at the F2F meeting there will be a proposal to publish a FPWD
18:54:31 [pfps]
arnaud: we have to move forward
18:54:55 [pfps]
holger: what is the working group being asked to do?
18:55:32 [pfps]
scribe comment - I think that arnaud was asking for the working group to look at the reviews but I didn't get a chance to scribe that
18:56:18 [pfps]
holger: I have made a number of changes to address comments
18:56:39 [pfps]
holger: right now I am using pseudo code but Arthur had a comment on that
18:56:52 [pfps]
holger: is there another way of doing things
18:57:00 [pfps]
arnaud: any suggestions
18:57:08 [pfps]
q+
18:57:13 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:57:47 [pfps]
pfps: in many papers I have seen the English description is better than the pseudo code
18:58:16 [pfps]
holger: how about Java script?
18:59:02 [pfps]
pfps: the problem is having the right level of specificity
18:59:17 [pfps]
arnaud: that is why pseudo code is often used
18:59:55 [pfps]
arnaud: there is no good answer - the only way forward is to choose the least worse
19:00:28 [pfps]
arnaud: you could change a small part and pass it by Arthus
19:00:53 [pfps]
holger: I'll experiment, but that is not going to happen by next week
19:01:11 [pfps]
s/Arthus/Arthur/
19:01:46 [pfps]
arnaud: we will come back to this at the F2F
19:01:55 [pfps]
Topic: ISSUE-70: blank node default type
19:02:24 [TallTed]
issue-70?
19:02:24 [trackbot]
issue-70 -- special treatment of blank node types -- open
19:02:24 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/70
19:04:42 [pfps]
pfps: I would like any language that the working group proposes to be as simple as possible so special treatment of certain kinds of nodes needs strong justification
19:06:19 [pfps]
holger: from my perspective the most important aspect is usability - the language needs to look attractive - I would be OK with not requiring type triples at all
19:06:22 [hknublau]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Aug/0155.html
19:07:00 [pfps]
holger: I find the JSON-LD syntax to be quite reasonable
19:07:41 [pfps]
arnaud: [summarize the two points of view]
19:07:53 [pfps]
arnaud: any other comments?
19:08:03 [pfps]
... from others
19:08:42 [pfps]
arnaud: if you really want something simple to write you can use the user-friendly syntax
19:09:05 [pfps]
holger: if we had that syntax ...
19:09:35 [pfps]
arnaud: the fact that we don't have the user-friendly syntax makes this call harder
19:10:23 [kcoyle]
don;t understand
19:10:36 [pfps]
holger: what about making the type triple optional
19:10:50 [pfps]
pfps: I'm not against that, but are there other problems?
19:11:31 [pfps]
holger: if people share IRIs then it would be helpful to have the type triple
19:11:47 [pfps]
pfps: I would go along with that
19:12:55 [pfps]
arnaud: maybe a warning that omitting the type arc might sometimes cause problems
19:13:00 [hknublau]
Proposal: For the properties marked with a sh:defaultValueType, the rdf:type triple is optional (to the engine). For IRIs, the recommendation will be to have a type triple (a SHOULD).
19:13:54 [pfps]
pfps: I don't know if I understand this proposal
19:14:27 [pfps]
Proposed: type triples are optional whenever they can be deteremined
19:15:31 [pfps]
holger: I think that there needs to be a sh:defaultValueType to make sense of the proposal
19:15:51 [pfps]
pfps: I think that a crisper proposal is needed
19:16:12 [pfps]
arnaud: agree
19:16:13 [TallTed]
PROOSAL: rdf:type statements SHOULD be included whenever possible, but they are optional. omitting rdf:type statements may have various negative effects, so their inclusion is strongly recommended.
19:16:58 [TallTed]
s/PROOSAL/PROPOSED/
19:17:06 [pfps]
holger: I don't like SHOULD on blank nodes
19:17:21 [pfps]
holger: I'll try to work out something
19:17:28 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-70, stating that rdf:type statements SHOULD be included whenever possible, but they are optional. omitting rdf:type statements may have various negative effects, so their inclusion is strongly recommended for IRIs.
19:18:33 [pfps]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-70, stating that rdf:type statements are optional but SHOULD be included whenever possible on IRI nodes. omitting rdf:type statements may have various negative effects, so their inclusion is strongly recommended for IRIs.
19:19:05 [pfps]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-70, stating that rdf:type statements are optional but SHOULD be included whenever possible on IRI nodes. omitting rdf:type statements may have various negative effects
19:19:31 [TallTed]
+1
19:19:34 [kcoyle]
+1
19:19:34 [pfps]
+1
19:19:34 [hknublau]
+1
19:19:42 [Dimitris]
+1
19:19:51 [ericP]
+0
19:20:11 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-70, stating that rdf:type statements are optional but SHOULD be included whenever possible on IRI nodes. omitting rdf:type statements may have various negative effects
19:20:39 [pfps]
ISSUE-51
19:20:39 [trackbot]
ISSUE-51 -- What types of validation results should be returned -- open
19:20:39 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/51
19:20:59 [Arnaud]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Aug/0157.html
19:21:59 [pfps]
arnaud: holger put together a proposal trying to be between something that it too simple and something that is too complex
19:22:10 [pfps]
q+
19:22:15 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:22:34 [pfps]
pfps: are there meta-classes involved?
19:22:45 [pfps]
holger: no
19:22:47 [kcoyle]
q+
19:22:52 [pfps]
pfps: sorry, I misread
19:23:49 [Arnaud1]
Arnaud1 has joined #shapes
19:23:50 [TallTed]
ack kcoyle
19:24:07 [pfps]
kcoyle: my concern is that the validation result was not returning anything for success
19:24:59 [pfps]
holger: there are success results - an API would have a boolean
19:25:32 [TallTed]
q+
19:25:50 [pfps]
...
19:26:23 [pfps]
arnaud: karen are you simply asking for something that says that no error was found? this would be a boolean result in the API
19:26:35 [Arnaud1]
ack TallTed
19:26:43 [pfps]
holger: the API has such a boolean, which is supported by the data model
19:27:35 [pfps]
ted: i've seen success with information ...
19:27:50 [pfps]
holger: you can determine the result from looking at the data produced
19:28:17 [pfps]
ted: successresult and validationresult are both success results - one has more information than the other
19:29:02 [pfps]
holger: there should be some distinction between errors and non-errors
19:29:32 [pfps]
ted: drop sucessresult and use non-error validationresult
19:30:00 [pfps]
dimitris: there can be multiple success results and multiple failure results
19:30:25 [pfps]
ted: validationresult would be better as constraintresult
19:30:42 [pfps]
arnaud: we are out of time
19:31:39 [pfps]
holger: success results are at the shape level - validation results are at the focus node level
19:32:08 [pfps]
arnaud: we will look at this next week - people can come up with proposals
19:32:47 [pfps]
arnaud: the goal for next week is to close as many issues as possible - we need to make progress
19:33:03 [pfps]
arnaud: people should read the reviews of the draft
19:33:13 [pfps]
arnaud: there are still issues with nomenclature
19:33:31 [TallTed]
the different levels of success/failure need different levels of messaging. overall success/failure of a shape validation is comprised of many success/failures of constraints within the shape. each constraint might produce pure-success/success-with-info/error (but need not produce success output).
19:33:42 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
19:33:48 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.09.03
19:34:12 [Arnaud]
regrets: aryman, simonstey
19:34:20 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:34:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:34:20 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, kcoyle, pfps, hknublau, ericp, TallTed, Dimitris
19:34:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:34:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/03-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:34:29 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:34:29 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items