17:56:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:56:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/08-shapes-irc
17:56:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:56:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:56:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:56:07 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:56:08 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:56:08 <trackbot> Date: 08 October 2015
17:56:51 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
17:57:05 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.10.08
17:57:52 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
17:57:54 <simonstey> no webex?
17:58:11 <kcoyle> simonstey: eric is working on it
17:58:23 <kcoyle> has anyone tried calling in? does phone # work?
17:58:23 <simonstey> ah thx
17:58:38 <hsolbrig> I tried and it answers but nothing happens
17:58:57 <Arnaud> this sucks
17:59:02 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
17:59:06 <hsolbrig> Maybe I should try the porn line instead...
17:59:15 <Arnaud> lol
17:59:18 <simonstey> :D
18:00:04 <simonstey> maybe they have webex?
18:00:10 <Arnaud> now we can either wait patiently for eric to work it out or bug him for updates and delay a potential solution
18:00:14 <Arnaud> I'm torn :)
18:00:17 <ericP> new meeting number: 647 895 586
18:00:39 <Arnaud> and is there a link?
18:00:41 <ericP> https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=mec3916d08593e479cf225a9f3c0cb652
18:00:45 <Arnaud> ah, thanks
18:01:49 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:01:54 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
18:01:57 <hsolbrig> webex is preparing my meeting...
18:02:05 <simonstey> present+ simonstey
18:02:12 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbrig
18:02:33 <Dimitris> I get "The meeting has been cancelled or ended!"
18:02:43 <simonstey>  https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=mec3916d08593e479cf225a9f3c0cb652
18:03:55 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:04:37 <Arnaud> new webex: https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=mec3916d08593e479cf225a9f3c0cb652
18:04:38 <aryman> the WebEx links says: The meeting has been cancelled or ended!
18:04:40 <kcoyle> present+ kcoyle
18:04:46 <hknublau> present+ hknublau
18:05:03 <kcoyle> scribenick: kcoyle
18:05:06 <aryman> present+ aryman
18:05:11 <Dimitris> used the phone number and the voice  says the meeting has not started yet
18:05:51 <simonstey>  https://mit.webex.com/mit/e.php?MTID=mec3916d08593e479cf225a9f3c0cb652
18:06:13 <Arnaud> present+ TallTed
18:06:23 <simonstey> use that link dimitris
18:07:05 <Dimitris> present+ dimitris
18:07:37 <Arnaud> regrets: pfps
18:07:49 <ericP> present+ ericP
18:08:18 <kcoyle> Arnaud: FPWD is out!!!
<kcoyle> ... was rather painful but we can now set up the automatic publication tool Echidna for future publications
18:09:36 <kcoyle> TOPIC: Admin
18:09:39 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 1 October Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/01-shapes-minutes.html
18:10:01 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 1 October Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/01-shapes-minutes.html
18:10:32 <kcoyle> TOPIC: Raised issues
18:11:48 <kcoyle> Arnaud: issues need to be clearly worded as issues - need a problem statement, and include proposed resolution
18:12:16 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-98, ISSUE-99, ISSUE-100, ISSUE-101
18:12:28 <simonstey> +1
18:13:32 <TallTed> +1
18:13:47 <Dimitris> +1
18:13:50 <kcoyle> ericP: trying to understand #99 - do we currently have .... nevermind
18:13:55 <kcoyle> +1
18:14:02 <aryman> +1
18:14:18 <ericP> +1
18:14:23 <hsolbrig> +1
18:14:37 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-98, ISSUE-99, ISSUE-100, ISSUE-101
18:15:36 <ericP> i actually kind of like that issues are just there for a proposal are clear about it
18:15:42 <kcoyle> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-95, adopting Holger's proposed simplifications
18:15:52 <simonstey> "It is not about inheritance between non-classes.  I thus vote against this change.  The first change that needs to be done is to replace the use of rdfs:subClassOf."
18:16:13 <Arnaud> topic: ISSUE-95
18:16:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-95 -- Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism -- open
18:16:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/95
18:16:34 <simonstey> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Oct/0059.html
18:17:32 <aryman> q+
18:17:42 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Oct/0037.html
18:18:06 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:18:56 <kcoyle> aryman: previously raised issue that there are many abstract classes - which is an implementation issue, not a vocabulary
18:19:03 <kcoyle> ... but I don't know if this proposal solves that
18:20:22 <kcoyle> Arnaud: could we still use this after solving Peter's issue?
18:20:52 <kcoyle> hknublau: wanted to get rid of abstract super-classes, and duplication (regular and inverse)
18:20:56 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:21:24 <kcoyle> ... this proposal represents all of those with a single function - decreases size of turtle file - and easier to define templates
18:21:32 <aryman> webbed just dropped my line
18:21:45 <aryman> s /webbed/webex/
18:22:16 <Labra> +present labra
18:22:25 <kcoyle> ...function only contains comparison of values - peter seems to be writing about a next step after this
18:22:44 <kcoyle> Arnaud: this is orthogonal to subclass objection
18:23:29 <aryman> dropped again
18:23:29 <kcoyle> hknublau: use of subclassOf means that instances of those templates use the same inheritance mechanism -- so it technically makes sense
18:23:37 <simonstey> I guess peter wants to have the subclassof issue resolved before dealing with issue 95
18:24:11 <kcoyle> ... but there is a second place using inheritance - allows connecting multiple constraint types together - this one has been removed
18:25:02 <kcoyle> Arnaud: this will be back on the agenda next week
18:25:20 <aryman> back
18:25:33 <aryman> q+
18:25:50 <Arnaud> ack aryman
<kcoyle> aryman: I missed Holger's statement
18:26:38 <kcoyle> Arnaud: summary is that Holger has already diminished use of subclassOf
18:25:37 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-91
18:25:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-91 -- Default Cardinality in property constraints -- open
18:25:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/91
18:27:09 <simonstey> pfps: I vote +1 for resolving ISSUE-91 in a way that does not require default values for cardinalities, i.e., min 0 and max unbounded. I vote -1 for other ways of resolving ISSUE-91.
18:27:38 <kcoyle> Arnaud: issue 91 raised by Harold; resolved already by issue 59
18:28:29 <kcoyle> ... side issue: whether it's ok to have default values that cannot be explicitly stated
18:28:41 <kcoyle> ... this could be a separate issue
18:29:46 <kcoyle> hsolbrig: prompted by statement in another thread, that cardinality is the same as uml - but that isn't so (uml is 1,1); in xml schema it's 1,1, but for an attribute it's 0,1
18:29:50 <aryman> q+
18:30:06 <kcoyle> ... 0..* is the least likely default
18:30:50 <kcoyle> ... the advantage of 0..* -- answer to this is: always state cardinality
18:31:06 <ericP> i don't think 0..* is the least likely; 13..267 narrowly edges it out for rareness
18:31:21 <hsolbrig> fair enough.
18:31:31 <kcoyle> Arnaud: There is no "most" case
18:31:58 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:32:55 <aryman> dropped again
18:33:07 <kcoyle> aryman: the analogy with uml is not valid; this is a constraint language; default makes sense when you have required properties and need a default
18:33:09 <Arnaud> are you using the client or the phone?
18:33:19 <Arnaud> maybe you can call the phone # directly?
18:33:36 <aryman> I ws saying that in SHACL we deal we conjunctions of constraints, so if a constraint is absent it is not necessary to give its parameters default values
18:33:39 <simonstey> [20:00] <ericP> new meeting number: 647 895 586
18:33:48 <aryman> an absent constraint simply makes no contribution
18:34:19 <aryman> in the case of cardinality, this gives the same result as saying min/max have defaults 0/*
18:34:50 <kcoyle> Arnaud: zero / unbound are not defaults? these are defaults
18:35:11 <aryman> will skype in
18:35:32 <simonstey> q+
18:35:47 <Dimitris> q+
18:36:09 <kcoyle> ericP: zero...* don't contribute constraints
18:36:29 <kcoyle> TallTed: not true that they don't contribute
18:36:43 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
18:36:47 <kcoyle> there's a constraint when shape is closed
18:37:25 <Dimitris> q-
18:37:56 <kcoyle> simonstey: originated because Karen wanted way to say max count is unbounded; no way to say max=unbounded, only can leave it off
18:38:23 <kcoyle> ...would vote for zero to unbounded but not 1,1.
18:38:36 <kcoyle> q+
18:38:42 <ericP> q+
18:38:46 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:38:48 <TallTed> I think we *must* be able to express unbound if this is *not* the default; we *should* be able to express it if it *is* the default.
18:39:23 <ericP> kcoyle: the defaults do make a difference when the shape is open vs. closed
18:39:47 <ericP> ... if the shape is closed, any properties that aren't mentioned are effectively closed.
18:40:03 <ericP> ... but if it's open, the 0..* does nothing
18:40:08 <Arnaud> ack ericP
18:40:19 <aryman> q+
18:40:51 <kcoyle> ericP: argument for 1,1 -- consistent with UML and RELAXng.
18:41:21 <kcoyle> ... other schema languages think this is what users want
18:41:34 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:42:17 <kcoyle> aryman: rdf data is different from OO data structures; when we put cardinality constraints on property we found we needed to relax it
18:42:51 <simonstey> +1 to arthur's point wrt. RDF data vs OO ds, was about to say that
18:42:52 <kcoyle> ... if you just want o mention a property you don't have to give it cardinality; you would have to with 1,1
18:42:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-91, keep 0 and unbound as defaults, in line with resolution of ISSUE-59
18:43:11 <simonstey> +1
18:43:14 <hknublau> +1
18:43:17 <Dimitris> +1
18:43:18 <aryman> +1
18:43:19 <kcoyle> +1
18:43:25 <hsolbrig> +0
18:43:29 <TallTed> +1
18:43:29 <ericP> +0
18:43:30 <Labra> -0.5
18:43:36 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-91, keep 0 and unbound as defaults, in line with resolution of ISSUE-59
18:44:18 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-57
18:44:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- Cardinalities on expressions or groups of triple constraints -- open
18:44:18 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/57
18:44:55 <simonstey> pfps: Cardinalities on groups of constraints is a decided increase in expressive power for SHACL.  Is there a semantics for this added expressive power that is compatible with the rest of SHACL and can be effectively implemented?  Without this I vote -1 for adding the construct.
18:45:46 <kcoyle> Labra: it is not possible to express cardinality on groups in SHACL, but it is allowed in ShEx
18:46:05 <kcoyle> ... validation may be more complex, but ShEx has managed to define the algorithms
18:46:14 <kcoyle> ... extends the expressiveness of SHACL and it is useful
18:47:15 <kcoyle> hknublau: can be expressed in QCRs; in a value shape it's an or?
18:47:49 <kcoyle> ericP: can first example using personShape be done in SHACL?
18:48:47 <aryman> q+
18:49:01 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:49:02 <kcoyle> Arnaud: Peter's comment puts burden on Jose to develop algorithm/formal definition
18:49:53 <kcoyle> aryman: second eg: equivalent to at least one of resolutions ... this could be done with QCC.
18:50:47 <kcoyle> Arnaud: 1) needs to be demonstrated if it can be done and see what it would look like 2) need to define better the semantics of this.
18:50:59 <kcoyle> ... possibly do first point first
18:51:26 <kcoyle> ... leave it as is? (silence)
18:51:28 <simonstey> q+
18:51:50 <kcoyle> aryman: don't know if existing QCC is adequate/ but "partition" might do it
18:52:28 <Arnaud> ack simonstey
18:53:17 <kcoyle> simonstey: i think the examples are expressible in SHACL if we approve node constraint from Holger; constraints that work on the specific focus node itself
18:53:55 <kcoyle> ... these would be used with and/or; but this requires that we are directly working on a focus node that adheres to a specific shape
18:55:27 <kcoyle> Arnaud: first explore the already proposed options (focus node, partition)
18:55:33 <ericP> +1 to the semantics being obvious
18:56:00 <kcoyle> Labra: goal is to translate from ShEx to SHACL w/out loss
18:56:32 <kcoyle> Arnaud: yes, this relates to the user-friendly language
18:56:50 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-86
18:56:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-86 -- Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies -- open
18:56:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/86
18:57:09 <Dimitris> q+
18:57:31 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
18:58:22 <kcoyle> Dimitris: If i'm developing a standard like SKOS and everyone needs to use the same constraints, then I want a way to put constraints in the same document
18:58:27 <aryman> q+
18:58:39 <kcoyle> ... but others may not want shapes in the data graph
18:59:15 <kcoyle> ... have 3 options: in line or imports
18:59:35 <kcoyle> ... or shapes graph
18:59:40 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:59:56 <Dimitris> 3 options: inline with the ontology definition, link them with owl:imports or us sh:shapesGraph
19:00:30 <kcoyle> aryman: Dimitris: you say you want to force constraints on all users of a vocabulary; you can already link a shape to a class via shapeClass
19:01:00 <kcoyle> ... ? is that not enough? eg any uses of a property have to use constraints
19:01:14 <kcoyle> Dimitris: this is about discoverability, link from vocab to shapes
19:01:19 <hknublau> q+
19:02:20 <kcoyle> hknublau: first two options are fine; in same file or use OWL import; if shape declarations are part of data graph, that's ok because they are valid shacl
19:02:39 <kcoyle> ... you can also exclude validation of shapes themselves
19:02:40 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:02:54 <kcoyle> ... rcommend either directly in data graph or use owl imports
19:03:40 <aryman> q+
19:03:53 <kcoyle> Dimitris: objection is from shapes graph to ontology graph
19:04:07 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:04:09 <kcoyle> Arnaud: Dimitris: write down a specific proposal, and we can react to it
19:04:35 <kcoyle> aryman: didn't we say that owl imports is the preferred way to combine arbitrary rdf
19:04:58 <kcoyle> Dimitris: when you use owl imports, then you have graph with shapes and data
19:05:05 <kcoyle> ... and shapes are not meant to be data
19:05:56 <kcoyle> ,,, need to be able to mix or not mix, as needed
19:06:09 <aryman> q+
19:06:13 <kcoyle> ... need to be able to mix or not mix, as needed
19:06:20 <hknublau> q+
19:06:22 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:07:11 <kcoyle> aryman: agree you don't want shapes mised with data graph - but didn't you want a link from the ontology to data graph, so why is shapes graph different?
19:07:54 <hknublau> q-
19:08:03 <kcoyle> ... we could use shapesGraph to link shape to data
19:08:45 <kcoyle> ... use shapesGraph to link vocabulary to shape
19:09:31 <kcoyle> ... don't overload shapesGraph; define another term that goes from a vocabulary to a shape
19:10:05 <kcoyle> ... ? from vocabulary or from class? Can be from a class node to a shape or from an ontology to a shape
19:10:38 <kcoyle> Arnaud: Dimitris will make a proposal and discussion will continue
19:10:43 <kcoyle> topic: ISSUE-92
19:10:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- open
19:10:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
19:12:09 <kcoyle> Arnaud: proposals from Holger (small addition that will address this use case); arthur introduced concept of partitions.
19:12:28 <ericP> q+ to describe the usability issue
19:12:46 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:12:46 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to describe the usability issue
19:13:26 <kcoyle> ericP: original motivation is that when you repeat properties in SHACL they are conjunctive; all constraints on all proeprties must be met
19:14:17 <kcoyle> ... experience at Dublin Core was that people expected a different behavior - predicate+value are different "things"
19:14:37 <kcoyle> ... arthur's proposal would result in the expected behavior
19:15:15 <aryman> q+
19:15:31 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:15:38 <kcoyle> ... would like to see something like arthur's proposal but applied as: for any time we see two properties, not a separate constraint
19:16:16 <kcoyle> aryman: nervous about eric's proposal because clauses not ordered and more than one could match
19:16:37 <kcoyle> ... overhead of checking all combinations
19:17:06 <kcoyle> ... however, all languages allow users to do expensive operations
19:17:47 <kcoyle> ... if triples are treated as sets, then we must introduce order
19:18:47 <kcoyle> ... for triples, sequence of separate constraints with cardinality on them; this would be more efficient -- would be sequential
19:19:01 <ericP> q+ to say that the complexity only arises when you actually have triples that intersect
19:19:24 <kcoyle> ... hopefully sequenced approach won't miss many possible cases
19:20:06 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:20:06 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that the complexity only arises when you actually have triples that intersect
19:20:06 <kcoyle> ... my proposal also deals with objections to qcc - this naturally gathers statements
19:21:02 <kcoyle> ericP: the complexity only arises when you are taking advantage of it - when instance data only fits one or the other it isn't so complex
19:21:27 <kcoyle> ... wondering if it's possible to say that the behavior when things are in the intersection of multiple constraints is undefined
19:21:54 <kcoyle> ... we have implementations of shex using three different algorithms of this (mapping to different algorithsm) and they all pass the same tests
19:22:10 <kcoyle> ... not terribly hard to implement
19:22:41 <Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0146.html
19:23:00 <kcoyle> Arnaud: question re clarifying current specification
19:23:45 <kcoyle> ... discussion between Irene and Eric -- example from Irene w constraints on age
19:24:00 <kcoyle> ... eric suggested grouping them into a single constraint
19:24:28 <simonstey> or you use sh:AndConstraint ;)
19:24:46 <kcoyle> ... there are two ways currently to combine - put them in the same property constraint, gets conjunction
19:25:03 <kcoyle> ... or could use explicit AND constraint
19:25:16 <kcoyle> ... language provides different ways to get same result
19:25:26 <kcoyle> ... couldn't one of this be changed to eric's way?
19:25:36 <kcoyle> s/this/these
19:25:55 <aryman> q+
19:25:59 <kcoyle> Arnaud: 3 ways to get conjunction?
19:26:02 <kcoyle> hknublau: yes
19:26:43 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:27:00 <kcoyle> ... qcrs would go away with arthur's proposal
19:27:23 <ericP> q+
19:27:35 <kcoyle> aryman: processors would treat as conjunction -- all constraints need to be satisfied
19:28:03 <kcoyle> ... if we had a way to satisfy eric's requirements, we should make a rule then that you cannot repeat predicate
19:28:56 <kcoyle> Arnaud: so why can't we treat multiple constraints as additive?
19:29:00 <Arnaud>   <S> sh:property [
19:29:00 <Arnaud>     sh:predicate :age ;
19:29:00 <Arnaud>     sh:minInclusive 4 ;
19:29:00 <Arnaud>     sh:maxInclusive 19
19:29:01 <Arnaud>   ] .
19:29:12 <kcoyle> aryman: we could; my only objection is implied computaitonal complexity
19:29:14 <Arnaud>   <S> sh:property [
19:29:14 <Arnaud>     sh:predicate :age ;
19:29:14 <Arnaud>     sh:minInclusive 4 ;
19:29:14 <Arnaud>   ] .
19:29:15 <Arnaud>   <S> sh:property [
19:29:15 <Arnaud>     sh:predicate :age ;
19:29:15 <Arnaud>     sh:maxInclusive 19
19:29:16 <Arnaud>   ] .
19:29:22 <hknublau> q+
19:29:30 <simonstey> q+
19:30:12 <aryman> Arnaud you are breaking up
19:30:13 <TallTed> Arnaud's voice is broken badly
19:30:13 <simonstey> arnaud you are breaking up
19:30:16 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:30:26 <ericP> ack me
19:30:36 <Arnaud> sorry about the sound problem
19:31:04 <kcoyle> ericP: computaitonal complexity for eric's and arthur's is same for main use cases;
19:31:05 <Arnaud> we're out of time, so please let's clear the queue and leave it at that for today
19:31:23 <kcoyle> ... I started out with conjunctive semantics but got pushback from users
19:31:54 <simonstey> -q
19:32:38 <kcoyle> aryman: above example -- doesn't work with additive semantics;
19:33:06 <kcoyle> ericP: this isn't a good example; multiple constraints would naturally go in the same triple constraint
19:33:18 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:34:27 <kcoyle> hknublau: shouldn't change behavior; interacts badly with other cases; can use qcr's for this, or could go further with arthur's proposal
19:34:56 <hknublau> (other cases being inheritance/subclassof)
19:35:03 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:35:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:35:03 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, simonstey, hsolbrig, kcoyle, hknublau, aryman, TallTed, dimitris, ericP
19:35:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:35:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/08-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:35:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:35:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items