17:59:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:59:43 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/01-shapes-irc
17:59:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:59:45 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:59:47 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:59:47 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:59:48 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:59:48 <trackbot> Date: 01 October 2015
18:00:05 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:03:03 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:03:14 <Arnaud> present+ kcoyle, dimitris, simonstey, Arnaud
18:03:32 <pfps> present+ pfps
18:03:34 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:03:36 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:03:44 <simonstey> present+ simonstey
18:05:53 <Arnaud> present+ hknublau
18:05:59 <Arnaud> present+ labra
<Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
<Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.10.01
<Arnaud> regrets: hsolbrig, aryman
18:08:31 <TallTed> present+ TallTed
18:08:53 <kcoyle> I got "meeting ended" ?
18:09:02 <kcoyle> Ted, what did you do?
18:09:02 <Arnaud> yeah, what was THAT?
18:09:03 <Labra> ** webex meeting has ended for me too?
18:09:04 <Dimitris> me too
18:09:20 <simonstey> he doesn't want to scribe I guess :D
18:09:27 <kcoyle> Eric will have to start it up again - I assume
18:09:28 <hknublau> … back to sleep then :)
18:09:34 <Arnaud> you've got to love webex...
18:09:54 <TallTed> webex is so much better than zakim..... or not
18:10:08 <Arnaud> and now it says the meeting has been canceled
18:10:12 <pfps> web appears to have blipped - that's the first time I've seen this particular brokenness on WebEx
18:10:22 <simonstey> maybe he was trying to get on the call and messed something up
18:10:48 <Arnaud> ok, hold on, I'll give you another number to call then
18:11:28 <Dimitris> i am back in
18:11:55 <Arnaud> are you using the client or calling direct?
18:12:13 <Dimitris> client
18:12:26 <Dimitris> holger, Jose and ted are in as well
18:12:29 <pfps> webex is beginning to look like Zakim, but without any of the features that make Zakim useful
18:13:37 <TallTed> scribenick: TallTed
18:14:31 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 24 September Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-shapes-minutes.html
18:14:49 <Arnaud> wait, it happened again??
18:14:54 <pfps> time for alternative measures
18:14:55 <simonstey> yes
18:14:56 <simonstey> :D
18:15:19 <kcoyle> yes
18:15:19 <Arnaud>  Tel: 888-426-6840/215-861-6239 Passcode: 406-4254
18:15:28 <Arnaud> More access numbers: https://www.teleconference.att.com/servlet/glbAccess?process=1&accessCode=4064254&accessNumber=2158616239
18:16:38 <kcoyle> back in
18:16:47 <simonstey> me2
18:17:23 <TallTed> webex says " You cannot join this meeting because the meeting host no longer has the privilege to start it. "
18:17:42 <pfps> present+ pfps
<Arnaud> present+ ericP
18:17:56 <TallTed> Arnaud - is that pure dial-in, i.e., no computer-based voice?
18:18:46 <Arnaud> Ted: yes, it is
18:18:57 <Arnaud> feel free to use skype or similar to call in though
18:20:11 <TallTed> that would be my first skype-to-pots call... no clue how to make that work.
18:20:12 <TallTed> I can dial in, but don't have tele-headset handy, and scribing will be the worse for it.
18:20:43 <Arnaud> you have no phone and no headset?
18:20:51 <Arnaud> how did you call in earlier?
<TallTed> topic: Admin
18:21:51 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 24 September Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-shapes-minutes.html
18:22:02 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 24 September Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-shapes-minutes.html
<TallTed> topic: Disposal of Raised Issues
18:22:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-93, ISSUE-94, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSUE-97
18:22:33 <hknublau> +1
18:22:47 <kcoyle> +1
18:22:51 <pfps> +1
18:22:51 <Dimitris> +1
18:22:53 <simonstey> +1
18:22:55 <TallTed> +1
18:23:48 <TallTed> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-93, ISSUE-94, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSUE-97
18:25:59 <TallTed> Arnaud: has been fighting with new W3 tools and process toward FPWD publication
18:27:30 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-77
18:27:35 <Arnaud> issue-77
18:27:35 <trackbot> issue-77 -- Shall sh:pattern also support sh:flags? -- open
18:27:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/77
18:29:06 <ericP> q+ to say they're in the SPARQL test suite
18:29:11 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:29:11 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say they're in the SPARQL test suite
18:31:35 <TallTed> [ discussion of regex flags ]
18:31:54 <simonstey> "The regular expression language is defined by XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators and is based on XML Schema Regular Expressions."
18:32:57 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:33:07 <simonstey> sparql refers to http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#regex-syntax
18:33:15 <TallTed> Arnaud: any objections to supporting regex flags?
18:33:21 <TallTed> [ crickets ]
18:33:31 <pfps> not from me - I'm more or less agnostic on this
18:34:30 <simonstey> "Invokes the XPath fn:matches function to match text against a regular expression pattern. The regular expression language is defined in XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators section 7.6.1 Regular Expression Syntax [FUNCOP]." that's what SPARQL says
18:34:31 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #shapes
18:34:38 <Arnaud1> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77, adding support for the same flags as SPARQL
18:34:46 <hknublau> +1
18:34:49 <Labra> +1
18:34:49 <TallTed> +1
18:34:54 <kcoyle> +1
18:34:57 <pfps> +0.5
18:35:00 <Dimitris> +1
18:35:01 <simonstey> +1
18:35:13 <ericP> +1
18:35:20 <Arnaud1> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-77, adding support for the same flags as SPARQL
18:35:40 <Arnaud1> issue-89
18:35:47 <trackbot> issue-89 -- How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? -- open
18:35:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/89
18:36:12 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-89
18:36:28 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #shapes
18:37:21 <TallTed> pfps: I don't see any problems with treating it the same way as other recursions are treated
18:37:50 <Dimitris> it could be useful for closed shapes
18:38:08 <pfps> the emphasis there was on *see*, as in there might be problems lurking but I haven't noticed them
18:38:34 <Arnaud1> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-89 stating that this is valid, although maybe not very useful, and will be treated consistently with how recursion is defined
18:38:36 <TallTed> s/don't see any/don't *see* any/
18:39:35 <pfps> I don't think that closed shapes have anything to say on this - there are no properties involved so nothing for the current closed shape construct to bite on
18:39:46 <TallTed> +1
18:39:47 <pfps> +1
18:39:51 <Labra> +0.5
18:39:53 <simonstey> +1
18:40:00 <Dimitris> +1
18:40:02 <hknublau> +1
18:40:17 <kcoyle> +1
18:40:25 <ericP> +1
18:40:28 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-89 stating that this is valid, although maybe not very useful, and will be treated consistently with how recursion is defined
18:40:36 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-90
18:40:36 <TallTed> ISSUE-90?
18:40:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-90 -- Can the focus node be a literal? -- open
18:40:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/90
18:41:57 <pfps> it's the addition of inverse property constraints that makes literals useful as focus nodes
18:42:04 <ericP> q+ to ask if thiis encourages bad behavior
18:43:07 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:43:07 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if thiis encourages bad behavior
18:43:56 <TallTed> pfps: this multiplies the importance of exact lexical representations, e.g., `"1"^^xsd:integer` =/= `"1"^^xsd:int`
18:47:50 <pfps> a constraint that a US president must be elected on an election day will fail if the president election date triple uses a different time zone from the election date triple
18:48:31 <pfps> hmm - I don't know if I believe this example - let me think more on this
18:50:09 <pfps> q+
18:50:26 <Arnaud> ack pfps
18:51:27 <simonstey> 5*25
18:51:45 <simonstey> and austria afaik
18:52:12 <TallTed> [ discussion fails to find calamitous bad effects ]
18:52:20 <pfps> given that we are just going along with that the current document says, let's go ahead
18:52:41 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-90, supporting literals as focus nodes
18:52:44 <hknublau> +1
18:52:45 <ericP> -.5
18:52:46 <simonstey>  +-0
18:52:49 <TallTed> +1
18:52:50 <pfps> +0.999999999999...
18:52:53 <Labra> -0.5
18:52:53 <kcoyle> +0
18:53:28 <pfps> as far as I know, no changes are required in the document, but there might be some explanatory text added
18:53:32 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-90, supporting literals as focus nodes
18:54:07 <hknublau> q+
18:54:13 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:55:30 <hknublau> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0128.html
18:58:29 <pfps> q+
18:59:35 <pfps> I am *not* sympathetic with the minor loss of time here
18:59:52 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:00:26 <simonstey> sh:nodeconstraint would work directly on the focus node instead of a property value of that focus node
19:02:13 <TallTed> ISSUE-91?
19:02:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-91 -- Default Cardinality in property constraints -- open
19:02:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/91
19:02:13 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-91
19:02:26 <pfps> hmm, my comment above may have come out the other way around
19:03:42 <Dimitris> didn't we already close this? https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/59
19:04:10 <pfps> q+
19:04:14 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:05:34 <TallTed> more useful than the issue link -- http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-shapes-minutes.html#resolution04
19:05:51 <simonstey> I personally think that 0..* is more intuitive than 1..1
19:06:05 <Dimitris> I agree with  simon
19:06:06 <kcoyle> I agree, although we don't have *
19:06:13 <pfps> I also
19:06:16 <kcoyle> q+
19:06:22 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:07:15 <pfps> I would propose closing it not as a duplicate, but because any new information didn't change the group's thinking
19:07:49 <TallTed> kcoyle - it seems awkward that we cannot explicitly state the default {0,unbound}
19:07:59 <hknublau> q+
19:08:01 <simonstey> if it's not constrained, you can have as much property values as you like
19:08:03 <kcoyle> q+
19:08:12 <pfps> We could regularize this by forbidding min 0
19:08:18 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:08:19 <Dimitris> what if we disallow min = 0
19:09:00 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:09:52 <ericP> q+ to say that most schema languages have a way to assert "*" without ways to assert defaults for every other constraint
19:09:56 <simonstey> filtershape?
19:10:35 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:10:35 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that most schema languages have a way to assert "*" without ways to assert defaults for every other constraint
19:10:48 <pfps> I agree with Holger that there is no need to have explicit unconstraining versions of all the constructs, such as sh:valueShape, sh:valueShape, sh:maxLength, sh:pattern, etc.
19:11:41 <simonstey> or you put those properties that should be included in the closed shape using sh:ignoredproperties
19:12:18 <pfps> I think that the reason for * is some schema languages is that they treat cardinalities specially - ShEx does this, for example - however, they could just have syntax versions that don't state a maximum cardinality
19:12:29 <pfps> max 0 has a use already
19:13:10 <pfps> min 1 and max 0 is silly but there are lots of silly shapes so why single this one out explicitly
19:13:48 <ericP> i don't think i could
19:13:53 <kcoyle> pfps: why is it silly?
19:13:57 <hknublau> There are already 4 -1 votes.
19:14:40 <Labra> +1 for (1,1)
19:14:43 <pfps> min 1 and max 0 can never happen
19:15:13 <ericP> i also think (1,1) is way more intuitive for users
19:15:22 <pfps> ... so any shape with this as a property constraint will fail on all nodes
19:15:28 <ericP> again, it's how other schema languages do it
19:15:44 <pfps> I find unconstrained to be much more natural
19:15:52 <TallTed> ISSUE-82?
19:15:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-82 -- Shall SHACL Core include support for unique language constraints? -- open
19:15:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/82
19:15:58 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-82
19:16:43 <ericP> i think this is relatively common
19:16:47 <TallTed> hknublau: question is whether to have this as a core feature or leave it to the extensions
19:16:52 <ericP> i'd be in favor of having it in core
19:16:57 <kcoyle> q+
19:17:02 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:17:04 <pfps> I would say "leave it out of core" except that it does see use in SKOS so I am ambivalent
19:18:08 <hknublau> sh:uniqueLang = true
19:18:16 <pfps> Didn't Karen just present a motivation for templates?
19:18:30 <hknublau> q+
19:18:40 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:18:58 <simonstey> peter has a valid point here
19:19:26 <pfps> the more that is in the core the more that the core looks like SPARQL!
19:21:19 <kcoyle> breaking up!
19:21:20 <hknublau> noise
19:21:33 <Labra> * noise and music ?
19:22:08 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: adding support for unique language constraint
19:22:12 <ericP> +1
19:22:18 <Dimitris> 0+
19:22:19 <kcoyle> +1
19:22:21 <TallTed> +0
19:22:23 <pfps> +0.000.....1
19:22:23 <Labra> +1
19:22:23 <hknublau> -0.5
19:22:51 <ericP> new constraint
19:22:57 <kcoyle> flag looks more intuitive to me
19:23:28 <Dimitris> q+
19:23:28 <ericP> that's ok
19:23:33 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:23:35 <kcoyle> q+
19:23:37 <pfps> a different kind of syntax for this?  that is weird
19:23:45 <pfps> q+
19:23:46 <Labra> * my skype call has been canceled
19:24:30 <ericP> what's uniqueLang("ab"@en, "ab", 7, _:foo) ?
19:24:33 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:24:37 <pfps> q-
19:24:51 <pfps> maybe a flag on property constraints isn't a new kind of syntax at all
19:25:34 <pfps> q+
19:25:49 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:25:57 <simonstey_> simonstey_ has joined #shapes
19:27:10 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-82, adding support for unique language constraint with sh:uniqueLang
19:27:27 <simonstey_> -0.5
19:27:29 <kcoyle> +1
19:27:33 <pfps> if the syntax is sh:uniqueLang that takes true or false as a new bit of property constraints, that's not new syntax
19:27:38 <pfps> +0
19:27:41 <Dimitris> 0+
19:27:44 <ericP>  +.7
19:27:47 <TallTed> +0.5
19:27:47 <hknublau> -.5
19:27:52 <pfps> I would like to hear from Simon
19:27:53 <ericP> +1
19:28:03 <simonstey_> +q
19:28:10 <Arnaud> ack simonstey_
19:29:47 <pfps> my reason for not being negative about this construct is that it does show up in mulitple places - not just SKOS - for example, one might want it on rdfs:comment in many situations
19:30:14 <TallTed> simonstey_: this seemed like a ripe opportunity for the extension mechanism
19:30:21 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-82, adding support for unique language constraint with sh:uniqueLang
19:30:24 <pfps> ok by me
19:31:32 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:31:32 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:31:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been kcoyle, dimitris, simonstey, Arnaud, pfps, hknublau, labra, TallTed, ericP
19:31:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:31:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/01-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:31:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:31:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items