17:58:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:58:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/15-shapes-irc
17:58:43 <kcoyle> webex is twirling - is the phone line working?
17:58:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:58:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
17:58:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:58:45 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:58:46 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:58:46 <trackbot> Date: 15 October 2015
18:00:13 <hknublau> present+ hknublau
18:00:22 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
18:01:50 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:01:51 <Arnaud> present+ TallTed
18:01:56 <Arnaud> present+ ericP
18:01:57 <ericP> present+ ericP
18:02:46 <Arnaud> present+ kcoyle
18:03:37 <Dimitris> present+ dimitris
18:05:30 <Arnaud> present+ aryman
18:06:05 <Dimitris> scribenick: dimitris
<Dimitris> chair: Arnaud
<Dimitris> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.10.15
18:06:05 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:06:22 <aryman> present+ aryman
18:06:33 <Arnaud> regrets: pfps, simonstey, hsolbrig
<Dimitris> topic: Admin
18:07:32 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 8 October Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/08-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:40 <Dimitris> arnaud: propose to approve minutes of last week
18:07:45 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 8 October Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/08-shapes-minutes.html
18:08:33 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:08:44 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
<Dimitris> topic: Raised issues
18:09:37 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-102
18:09:44 <ericP> +1
18:09:44 <Arnaud> issue-102
18:09:44 <trackbot> issue-102 -- Some defaults cannot be explicitly coded -- raised
18:09:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/102
18:09:52 <kcoyle> +1
18:09:53 <Dimitris> +1
18:10:21 <aryman> q+
18:10:24 <TallTed> +1
18:10:24 <Labra> +1
18:10:27 <Dimitris> arnaud: this is a reasonable question to ask
18:10:30 <Labra> present+ labra
18:10:30 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:11:22 <Dimitris> aryman: I don't like the title, we shouldn't imagine that every template should have a default value
18:11:43 <Dimitris> ... most of the constraint are similar
18:12:15 <Dimitris> ... default only makes sense if something is required
18:12:54 <Dimitris> tallted: by declaring this cardinality we say that by default it is 0 - unbound
18:13:24 <Dimitris> aryman: we also do not have default constraints
18:14:18 <Dimitris> arnaud: how should we rename this issue?
18:14:59 <kcoyle> q+
18:15:08 <Dimitris> aryman: we also have min length, max length
18:15:22 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
18:15:36 <Dimitris> kcoyle: happy to change the title a bit
18:15:56 <Dimitris> ... i would like to say my max count is unbounded
18:17:26 <Arnaud> how about: missing a way to explicitly state unbound cardinality and open shapes
18:18:07 <aryman> +1 as amended
18:18:35 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-102, changing the title to: missing a way to explicitly state unbound cardinality and open shapes
18:19:17 <Arnaud> q?
<Dimitris> topic: Test Suite status
18:19:21 <Dimitris> arnaud: Eric can you give an update on the test suite?
18:19:53 <ericP> http://shexspec.github.io/test-suite/
18:20:11 <ericP> https://github.com/shexSpec/test-suite
18:20:28 <Dimitris> ericp: Jose gathered a test suite for ShEx some time ago. there are two test suites and I checked which one is applicable to SHACL
<Dimitris> ... most of the tests are but I have a question
18:20:57 <ericP> <myShape> { :p1 xsd:integer, :p2 xsd:float }
18:20:59 <Dimitris> ... what is the representation of ShEx in SHACL and I was trying to figure out a simple conjuction
18:21:27 <aryman> q+
18:21:34 <Dimitris> ... and not sure how to translate in SHACL
18:21:47 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:22:12 <Dimitris> aryman: they mean the same. Should we say that a given property can appear only once?
18:22:47 <ericP> <myShape> { :p1 xsd:integer | :p2 xsd:float }
18:22:56 <Dimitris> ericP: do I represent them as a constraint with an AND?
18:23:25 <Dimitris> ... do I split that in two shapes?
18:24:14 <Dimitris> aryman: I think yes. This is related to issue-95
18:25:37 <Dimitris> Arnaud: so the status is you investigated how you can re-use the existing tests and you are looking how to translate automatically
18:26:45 <aryman> WebEx just dropped my line.
18:26:50 <Dimitris> ericp: once these things get resolved it will be easier to translate them in SHACL and have variations
18:26:50 <aryman> Back in now.
18:28:57 <Dimitris> arnaud: the use of and does not need to be explicit
18:30:11 <Dimitris> ... karen, are you also importing tests?
18:30:32 <Dimitris> kcoyle: we don't have people that know shacl and no way to test our shacl
18:31:19 <aryman> q+
18:32:08 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:32:10 <Dimitris> arnaud: how many people are planning to implement shacl
<Dimitris> ... TopQuadrant is doing it, Open Link Software will but not sure when, anyone else?
<Dimitris> dimitris: I am also working on an implementation
18:32:27 <Dimitris> aryman: I know Clark&Parsia might be interested
18:33:51 <aryman> q+
18:33:57 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:34:54 <Arnaud> topic: ISSUE-95
<Dimitris> arnaud: Peter isn't here so this will have to wait
18:34:54 <trackbot> issue-95 -- Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism -- open
18:34:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/95
18:34:57 <aryman> why use sh:scopeClass for injection?
18:35:01 <Dimitris> aryman: holger uses the term scopeClass to inject contraints, is this overloaded?
18:35:37 <Dimitris> hknublau: sh:scopeClass is consistent to the validation tools
18:36:09 <Dimitris> ... with the same logic they can validate a constraint or an instance
18:36:51 <Dimitris> aryman: you are arguing on code-reuse but scopeClass has a very different meaning
18:37:44 <Dimitris> ... and these are very different use cases
18:38:14 <Dimitris> ... the re-use of code shouldn't affect the language design
18:38:29 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:39:36 <Dimitris> hknublau: it is consistent and affects a very small number of people
18:40:42 <Dimitris> aryman: can you provide the meaning of sh:scopeClass in the spec?
18:41:28 <Dimitris> arnaud: Arthur's request is reasonable, can you please provide it, either as link to the spec or on mail
18:42:07 <Dimitris> ... let's leave it for next week
18:42:19 <Dimitris> topic: ISSUE-86
18:43:36 <Arnaud> issue-86
18:43:36 <trackbot> issue-86 -- Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies -- open
18:43:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/86
18:45:02 <Dimitris> arnaud:Dimitris made a proposal to resolve but Peter objected.
18:45:40 <Dimitris> ... we should recognise that people have different use cases
18:46:22 <hknublau> q+
18:46:26 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
18:47:01 <Dimitris> hknublau: looked into this yesterday and even the design with sh:shapesGraph is difficult with users
18:47:53 <Dimitris> ... imitris suggests to add another keyword for another scenario. I am not totally against this but it get's compicated
18:48:25 <Dimitris> ... class definitions need to exist in the shapes graph and this is already too much to explain
18:50:56 <Dimitris> ... you can use owl:imports and a tool can identify it is a shapes graph
18:52:14 <Dimitris> arnaud: a diagram can show this operations.
18:52:43 <Dimitris> ... dimitris make a more  simplified proposal
18:53:21 <Dimitris> topic: ISSUE-98
18:53:21 <TallTed> s/imitris suggests/dimitris suggests/
18:53:25 <Arnaud> issue-98
18:53:25 <trackbot> issue-98 -- Can property constraints also apply to focus nodes? -- open
18:53:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/98
18:54:33 <Dimitris> hknublau: my proposal is to allow constraints on focus nodes as well
18:55:39 <Dimitris>  ... (summarizing the proposed changes)
18:57:20 <aryman> q+
18:57:34 <Dimitris> arnaud: Peter proposed that it would be simplified further if we look at ShEx
18:57:49 <Arnaud> ack aryman
18:57:54 <Dimitris> ... but this is not a stopper for now
18:58:31 <Dimitris> aryman: I like where this is going. regarding syntaxt we shoudn't declare sh:constraint
18:59:08 <Dimitris> hknublau: we examine that later, not sure about it now
18:59:19 <aryman> q+
18:59:38 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:00:55 <Dimitris> aryman: this is similar to ResourceShapes. We should stop considering code but make language simpler
19:01:10 <Dimitris> hknublau: code helps me identify consequences
19:02:37 <Dimitris> arnaud: that's fair, we can agree to this and then Arthur can raise different issues
19:03:05 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-98, adopting Holger's proposed changes
19:03:11 <aryman> +1
19:03:25 <hknublau> +1
19:03:27 <aryman> +1
19:03:30 <kcoyle> +0
19:03:33 <ericP> +0
19:03:35 <Dimitris> +1
19:03:37 <Labra> 0
19:04:11 <TallTed> +1
19:04:38 <Arnaud> - Rename sh:allowedValues to sh:memberOf (or sh:oneOf)
19:04:54 <aryman> q+
19:04:57 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:04:57 <Dimitris> q+
19:05:13 <Dimitris> hknublau: we also need to decide how we rename sh:allowedValues
19:06:04 <aryman> Propose sh:in
19:06:18 <Dimitris> aryman: sh:in can be used
19:06:21 <Dimitris> q-
19:06:25 <hknublau> ok for me
19:06:36 <Dimitris> q+
19:06:41 <Arnaud> ack Dimitris
19:07:36 <Dimitris> dimitris: what will in check in the case of focus nodes?
19:07:45 <TallTed> +0
19:07:49 <kcoyle> "in" sounds good
19:07:50 <Dimitris> hknublau: focus nodes can be literals as well so it can be any value
19:08:02 <Dimitris> +1 to sh:in
19:08:14 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-98, adopting Holger's proposed changes, renaming sh:allowedValues to sh:in
19:09:06 <Dimitris> topic: ISSUE-61
19:10:14 <aryman> q+
19:10:27 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:11:15 <Dimitris> aryman: one of the oslc use cases is to use http get to a resource. that triple has to be in the data graph
19:11:29 <hknublau> q+
19:11:51 <Dimitris> ... we need a triple in the data graph and we don't care about the direction
19:11:51 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:12:15 <TallTed> q+
19:12:51 <aryman> the OSLC use case requires that the triple linking the resource to the shape be in the data graph
19:12:51 <kcoyle> q+
19:12:55 <aryman> q+
19:13:20 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
19:13:24 <Dimitris> hknublau: we can call that triple pollution, this triple should go in the shapes graph, it has nothing to do with the data. it also consistent with the design of scopeClass
19:13:56 <hknublau> q+
19:14:01 <Dimitris> tallted: This makes the shape less re-usable
19:14:30 <Dimitris> ... it seems odd to have it in the shape definition
19:15:00 <Dimitris> arnaud: people have different use cases
19:15:36 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:16:27 <Dimitris> kcoyle: there is a number of different meanings
19:16:39 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:17:47 <TallTed> +1 aryman's comments
19:18:19 <Dimitris> aryman: the shape is a type definition for data. how can the shapes graph contain links to the resources since resources can be created / deleted dynamically?
19:19:21 <Dimitris> ... the triple has to be present in the data graph
19:20:58 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:21:39 <Dimitris> hknublau: I raised it after peter's proposal
19:22:18 <Dimitris> ... shapes can be in separate graphs and combined with owl:iimports
19:23:05 <TallTed> so this is an inverse-relation for sh:nodeShape -- but does not *belong* in the shape itself (though there *might* be a use case of which we're unaware, so we should perhaps not prohibit that)
19:23:33 <TallTed> I'm OK with having sh:shapeNode inverse of sh:nodeShape -- that's fine -- sometimes expression can only be in one direction
19:24:04 <TallTed> this statement can be made in any graph -- using sh:shapeNode does *not* mandate that the triple be in the shape (or shape graph)
19:24:20 <Dimitris> arnaud: let's stop for now and wait for Peter who raised this issue
19:26:39 <Dimitris> aryman: the notion of reversing the relation doesn't make sense
19:26:51 <Dimitris> tallted: some tools have direction limitations
19:27:45 <Dimitris> aryman: this adds complexity to get data and need to always create union sparql queries
19:28:51 <Dimitris> tallted: you can build a reasoner to handle the reverse. there are lot's of ways to handle this
19:28:58 <hknublau> I generally dislike inverse properties.
19:29:11 <ericP> +1 to +1
19:29:38 <ericP> sorry, +1 to Aryman's point
19:29:57 <Dimitris> arymam: rdf is a way of encoding statements, why do we need to use inverse predicates for everything
19:31:17 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
19:31:17 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
19:31:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, Arnaud, TallTed, ericP, kcoyle, dimitris, aryman
19:31:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:31:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/15-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:31:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
19:31:26 <RRSAgent> I see no action items