18:00:00 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:00:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-shapes-irc
18:00:02 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:00:02 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:00:04 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:00:04 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:00:05 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:00:05 <trackbot> Date: 24 September 2015
18:01:05 <Arnaud> present+ pfps, Arnaud
18:01:09 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
18:01:17 <Arnaud> present+ kcoyle
18:01:36 <Arnaud> regrets: labra, dimitris
18:01:41 <simonstey> present+ simonstey
18:02:17 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbrig
18:02:51 <Arnaud> present+ ericP
18:03:36 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:03:47 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:04:17 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
18:04:35 <simonstey> TOPIC: Admin
18:04:45 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.09.24
18:04:48 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:05:44 <hknublau> present+ hknublau
18:06:01 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 17 September Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/17-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:07 <simonstey> Arnaud: I'll fix the present list
18:07:34 <aryman> present+ aryman
18:08:18 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 17 September Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/17-shapes-minutes.html
18:08:41 <simonstey> Arnaud: next meeting 1.10
18:08:43 <simonstey> TOPIC: SPWD of UCR
18:08:49 <simonstey> q+
18:08:53 <TallTed> present+ TallTed
18:09:03 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
18:09:19 <pfps> q+ to ask whether there should be a "Changes" section
18:10:01 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/
18:11:55 <aryman> q+
18:12:14 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:12:14 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask whether there should be a "Changes" section
18:12:24 <simonstey> simonstey: current version is up2date and ready for review
18:12:57 <ericP> pfps: no changes since last version section
18:13:10 <ericP> simonstey: since the last doc, we've mostly only added stuff
18:13:10 <pfps> So changes would say "editorial changes and addition of new use cases"
18:13:18 <Arnaud> simonstey: I think we should rename the UCs and Rs
18:13:19 <ericP> ... we've cleaned up a few.
18:13:27 <Arnaud> s/rename/renumber/
18:13:48 <ericP> s/only added stuff/not added stuff/
18:13:50 <pfps> So then changes would say "editorial changes only"
18:14:11 <pfps> ... plus fixes to existing use cases.
18:14:43 <Arnaud> q?
18:15:03 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:16:09 <simonstey> aryman: I don't think that we need to renumber the UCs
18:16:44 <ericP> +1 to not bothering
18:16:52 <pfps> pick one
18:16:54 <simonstey> ... all mails that were referring to those stories would be obsolete
18:16:56 <kcoyle> +1 to keeping links
18:17:44 <Arnaud> Arnaud: ok, let's keep the current numbers
18:18:57 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements
18:21:03 <simonstey> simonstey: I'll prepare a list of REQs to look over for the next call
18:21:11 <aryman> the UCR looks good
18:21:19 <pfps> In general I prefer the option of allowing review.
18:21:25 <aryman> q+
18:21:28 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:21:40 <pfps> q+
18:22:09 <ericP> q+ to propose we incorporate a paragraph about repeated properties to UC47
18:22:09 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:22:16 <simonstey> aryman: I don't feel the need to review it
18:24:51 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish UCR Editor's draft, with added changes section
18:25:04 <pfps> doesn't looking require a week?
18:25:45 <simonstey> ericP: everyone could look at their UCs and see whether they are correctly represented/interpreted
18:25:47 <pfps> you can observe a lot by just looking for a week
18:26:08 <pfps> +0.5
18:26:09 <aryman> +1
18:26:11 <simonstey> +1
18:26:14 <ericP> +1
18:26:15 <TallTed> +1
18:26:15 <hsolbrig> +1
18:26:19 <ericP> q-
18:26:20 <kcoyle> +1
18:26:36 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Publish UCR Editor's draft, with added changes section
18:28:06 <simonstey> TOPIC: Disposal of Raised Issues
18:28:15 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-92
18:28:24 <simonstey> Arnaud: I suggest we open all raised issues
18:28:33 <pfps> these all look like appropriate issues
18:28:34 <simonstey> ISSUE-90
18:28:34 <trackbot> ISSUE-90 -- Can the focus node be a literal? -- raised
18:28:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/90
18:28:38 <simonstey> ISSUE-91
18:28:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-91 -- Default Cardinality -- raised
18:28:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/91
18:28:42 <simonstey> ISSUE-92
18:28:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- raised
18:28:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
18:28:51 <ericP> +1
18:28:56 <kcoyle> +1
18:28:58 <simonstey> +1
18:29:07 <TallTed> +1
18:29:13 <hsolbrig> +1
18:29:32 <pfps> +1
18:29:44 <aryman> +1
18:29:55 <hknublau> +1
18:30:07 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-92
18:30:22 <simonstey> TOPIC: FPWD of SHACL Spec
18:30:59 <simonstey> Arnaud: we've gone back and forth; quite some changes were made
18:31:26 <pfps> that is, of course, not a ringing endorsement of the document as is
18:32:01 <simonstey> ... since no one is heavily against publishing it as a FPWD I propose to do so
18:32:15 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish SHACL Editor's draft as a FPWD
18:32:19 <aryman> +1
18:32:25 <TallTed> +1
18:32:25 <simonstey> +1
18:32:38 <kcoyle> +1
18:32:40 <hknublau> +1
18:32:47 <ericP> +.5
18:32:57 <pfps> the bar to be passed is that the document does not go against WG consensus and will be mostly understood by readers
18:32:59 <pfps> 0
18:33:26 <hsolbrig> Got dropped off the Skype connection -- trying to get back in
18:33:48 <simonstey> Arnaud: none of what's in the document is cast in stone! everything can be changed
18:34:13 <simonstey> ... the document can be changed at any time
18:34:34 <Arnaud> hsolbrig, do you care to vote?
18:34:45 <pfps> I'm planning on publicising the document to a couple of mailing lists, along with comments about some of the aspects of SHACL
18:34:45 <hsolbrig> I lost audio a bit back
18:34:51 <hsolbrig> Skype seems to be having another fit
18:34:55 <hsolbrig> +1
18:35:03 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Publish SHACL Editor's draft as a FPWD
18:36:17 <simonstey> Arnaud: I guess publishing the draft isn't that easy, eric and I will figure out what has to be done to publish it
18:36:27 <simonstey> TOPIC: ISSUE-87: Turtle file
18:36:33 <simonstey> ISSUE-87
18:36:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-87 -- Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? -- open
18:36:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/87
18:37:02 <simonstey> Arnaud: the short name might be kind of misleading
18:37:44 <aryman> q+
18:37:53 <simonstey> ... normally you have a document that shows up when someone resolves the SHACL namespace
18:39:08 <simonstey> ericP: usually I hit up the editors to provide HTML, turtle, RDF/XML representations of the vocabulary
18:39:42 <aryman> see http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
18:39:47 <ericP> ldp.{html,ttl,rdf,var}
18:39:57 <simonstey> ... (eric looks up LDP example)
18:40:01 <aryman> see also http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
18:40:06 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp
18:40:59 <simonstey> Arnaud: the question is how much we want to put in there as of now
18:41:14 <pfps> +1 to a stake in the namespace ground only
18:41:33 <simonstey> ... we could just have a pointer to our work
18:41:41 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:41:59 <simonstey> ... but the question is what we actually want to publish as .ttl (if we want to do so ever)
18:42:55 <simonstey> aryman: we should align with W3C's recommendations on specifying vocabularies and should definitely publish it at some point
18:43:14 <pfps> q+
18:43:22 <simonstey> ... I just had the impression that the current vocab contains too much implementation specific parts
18:43:53 <pfps> q-
18:44:05 <simonstey> Arnaud: were is the current .ttl file stored? It seems to be gone from the repo
18:44:19 <pfps> q+
18:44:25 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:44:35 <simonstey> hknublau: I've deleted it from the repo, since there was no consensus on having such a document
18:44:51 <aryman> q+
18:45:11 <simonstey> ... it can still be found on the github page of the topbraid/shaclapi
18:46:01 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:46:08 <simonstey> Arnaud: I don't think the file should have been deleted
18:47:07 <simonstey> aryman: the vocab should contain at least every term mentioned in the FPWD
18:48:14 <simonstey> ... I've access to tools that can ensure the consistency of .ttl/rdf/xml/html representation of a vocab by transforming one into another
18:48:21 <pfps> q+
18:49:00 <simonstey> aryman: just having a document there that says "that's a namespace" doesn't make much sense
18:49:05 <pfps> how can i get to historical versions of the turtle file
18:49:53 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:50:31 <hsolbrig> +1 to pfps
18:51:00 <simonstey> pfps: If we include a URL it must resolve, we need to put a stake in the (our namespace) ground
18:51:36 <pfps> the actual document could just have *no* RDF content whatsoever
18:52:00 <simonstey> ericP: I'm working on something already
18:52:28 <pfps> that's going to have to have some disclaimers
18:53:25 <pfps> q+ to say that 0 properties and 0 classes are adequate
18:53:38 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:53:38 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that 0 properties and 0 classes are adequate
18:53:42 <hsolbrig> Definitely NOT ShapeClass...
18:53:49 <simonstey> Arnaud: I'm concerned that including parts of the vocab in there requires some additional confirmation of WG members
18:54:45 <pfps> +1 to a pro-forma document
18:55:07 <kcoyle> +1 to stake in the ground
18:55:16 <simonstey> Arnaud: if people follow the ns link, they get to a pro-forma document
18:55:17 <hsolbrig> +1 to snake on the ground
18:55:25 <simonstey> +1
18:55:27 <TallTed> +1
18:55:32 <aryman> +0
18:55:57 <hsolbrig> wooden, of course
18:56:12 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: publish a pro-forma document as a stake in the ground for the namespace along with FPWD
18:57:06 <simonstey> TOPIC: ISSUE-65: nomenclature consistency
18:57:10 <simonstey> ISSUE-65
18:57:10 <trackbot> ISSUE-65 -- Consistency and cohesiveness of nomenclature (e.g., shapes, scopes, and constraints) -- open
18:57:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65
18:57:51 <Arnaud> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#terms
18:58:15 <pfps> q+
18:58:17 <simonstey> Arnaud: the question is (putting aside the fact the spec is sometimes not consistent with itself) when it comes to the nomenclature itself, is the glossary we are using enough to call the issue resolved?
18:58:25 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:59:14 <simonstey> pfps: I think the current nomenclature or organization is currently somehow troubling
18:59:34 <aryman> q+
19:00:01 <simonstey> ... everytime I read the document I get confused (but I don't know exactly why)
19:00:30 <simonstey> ... in particular, shapes are both inside and outside of constraints
19:00:57 <simonstey> ... and behave there differently
19:01:42 <simonstey> ... scopes and filters are another issue, you've to remember which apply when and if they are actually mattering
19:02:04 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:02:38 <simonstey> aryman: I think what we are seeing is design entropy, shapes are basically a set of constraints and things that are added to them like scopes and filters
19:02:51 <pfps> shapes also have names and comments and ......
19:03:18 <pfps> +1 to Arthur
19:03:38 <simonstey> ... QFC are another example, they are like the other constraints but not quite the same
19:04:08 <pfps> and min and max cardinality are described almost like other bits of property constraints, but not exactly
19:05:30 <simonstey> Arnaud: I just wanted to check where we stood in this regard
19:06:34 <aryman> also Closed Shape is very different from other constraints
19:06:34 <pfps> the issue with shapes inside constraints is a shape "Can have zero or more scopes that select the nodes that the shape applies to." [Glossary] but this does not apply when a shape is inside a constraint
<simonstey> topic: Misc
19:08:12 <simonstey> Arnaud: harold mentioned some "issues" that seem like actual issues that should be raised
19:09:05 <aryman> nice work Simon
19:09:42 <aryman> q+
19:09:45 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:11:07 <simonstey> aryman: how do you indicate the subject of a requirement?
19:11:55 <simonstey> ericP: the language specification tells you how to interpret strings of that language
19:11:58 <pfps> I'm sad to say that OWL 2 uses MUST for both the language and to constrain tools
19:13:46 <simonstey> ... we could look at the turtle, SPARQL or OWL spec that are all kind of handling this issue differently
19:14:14 <simonstey> Arnaud: we could allocate time in the future to address it
19:14:39 <simonstey> TOPIC: Additive repeated properties
19:15:00 <simonstey> eric's proposal : https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0107.html
19:15:05 <pfps> SPARQL 1.1 query language doesn't use RFC2119 at all
19:15:13 <simonstey> holger's proposal: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0128.html
19:16:07 <simonstey> Arnaud: Karen has been looking at her use cases and checked whether they are currently realizable using SHACL
19:16:19 <pfps> q+
19:17:08 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:17:24 <simonstey> ... I want at least to clarify if there is a problem here or not
19:18:32 <simonstey> pfps: I've been staying out of this discussion, because I don't see the problem at hand
19:22:06 <pfps> my problem with the discussion is that I don't know what is being asked for - it seems to me that the request is to change each individual constraint and that this change results in a change to the natural combination algebra for constraints
19:22:45 <simonstey> ISSUE-92
19:22:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- raised
19:22:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
19:23:54 <simonstey> Arnaud: with the current draft, the example in the issue is invalid
19:24:28 <simonstey> ... both property constraints are evaluated for the same property
19:24:29 <aryman> q+
19:24:35 <pfps> in ShEx, an isolated constraint :p @<s> [1,1] is satisfied by a node that has p links to two other nodes that satisfy <s>
19:25:04 <aryman> q-
19:26:21 <simonstey> TallTed: eric's example should definitely be expressible
19:26:53 <hknublau> In the current spec this would look like two qualifiedValueShapes at the same shape, i.e. ex:MyShape sh:property [ QCR1] ; sh:property [QCR2] .
19:30:22 <simonstey> Arnaud: we somehow have to figure out how to address both of the mentioned use cases
19:31:52 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:31:52 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:31:52 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pfps, Arnaud, kcoyle, simonstey, hsolbrig, ericP, hknublau, aryman, TallTed
19:31:59 <hknublau> hknublau has left #shapes
19:32:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:32:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:32:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:32:01 <RRSAgent> I see no action items