17:59:29 <kcoyle> present+ kcoyle
17:59:45 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
18:00:42 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:02:00 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #shapes
18:02:12 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbrig
18:03:28 <aryman> present+ aryman
18:04:07 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:04:25 <pfps> present +pfps
18:04:30 <Dimitris> present+ dimitris
18:07:00 <ericP> present+ eric
<ericP> topic: Admin
18:07:23 <ericP> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 22 October Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/22-shapes-minutes.html
18:07:51 <pfps> The minutes looked fine to me.
18:08:09 <pfps> Minimum criteria is that the resolutions are OK
18:08:12 <ericP> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 22 October Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/22-shapes-minutes.html
18:08:29 <TallTed> present+ TallTed
18:09:34 <pfps> q+
18:09:54 <Dimitris> there is some echo from  aryman & Harold
18:10:02 <pfps> q+
18:10:27 <aryman> scribenick: aryman
18:10:56 <aryman> scribe: aryman
18:11:15 <aryman> chair: ericP
<aryman> regrets: Arnaud
<aryman> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.10.29
18:11:33 <pfps> there were some posts to the WG mailing list that came from a non-mmemer
18:12:00 <pfps> are these posts official comments?  if so they should be tracked, and there should not have been a response from the WG
18:12:06 <aryman> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings#Next_Meeting
18:12:34 <ericP> topic: Alien posts to WG list
18:14:01 <kcoyle> this happened before: ttp://ibt.uk/A006P4I
18:14:07 <aryman> ericP: we need to be careful about patent issues when dealing with alien posts to mailing list
18:14:41 <aryman> TOPIC: Disposal of Raised Issue: ISSUS-104 Better support for sh:Or
18:14:45 <kcoyle> oops, ignore that link... this is the link: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Aug/0056.html
18:14:47 <ericP> http://piratepad.net/shacl
18:15:00 <aryman> s/ISSUS/ISSUE/
18:15:03 <kcoyle> ISSUE-104
18:15:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-104 -- Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? -- raised
18:15:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/104
18:15:12 <pfps> q+
18:15:21 <pfps> q+
18:15:25 <ericP> ack next
18:15:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:15:41 <ericP> trackbot, start meeting
18:15:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:15:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/29-shapes-irc
18:15:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:15:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:15:45 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:15:46 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:15:46 <trackbot> Date: 29 October 2015
18:15:58 <TallTed> q+
18:16:13 <ericP> ack next
Ç18:16:49 <pfps> I"m OK with opening this - if the issue is broadened later that's fine
18:17:06 <aryman> ISSUE-104 is about a simpler syntax for allowing unions of datatypes or classes
18:17:12 <ericP> RESOLVED: open issue-104
18:17:34 <aryman> TOPIC: Requirements
18:17:49 <pfps> q+
18:17:57 <ericP> -> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1whx2DeJtng-WZXo2DAHc_GZL7ElXNS_B8fBxarGA-0o/ google doc of requirements
18:18:03 <ericP> ack next
18:18:43 <kcoyle> "addressing" requirements?
18:19:14 <kcoyle> q+
18:19:23 <aryman> ericP: who has reviewed the Google doc?
18:19:34 <aryman> pfps: Looks good
18:19:35 <ericP> ack next
18:19:47 <TallTed> perhaps change "Solution" to "Satisfied?  By?"
18:20:02 <pfps> This could be in UC&R, either concentrated or spread out.
18:20:52 <pfps> I like "satisfied by" as well
18:23:22 <ericP> q?
18:24:06 <kcoyle> ACTION: kcoyle to send email to group with unclear "satisfied by's"
18:24:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Send email to group with unclear "satisfied by's" [on Karen Coyle - due 2015-11-05].
18:24:23 <pfps> Right the satisfied by column should point to the "solution"
18:26:18 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-93
18:27:39 <pfps> There are three things - the SHACL language, the SHACL validation process, and good style for SHACL shape document
18:28:36 <pfps> The SHACL spec should have the first two  - the third could be put into a primer, but that requires someone to write the primer
18:28:50 <aryman> hsolorig: the spec does not clearly separate RDF syntax and semantics and conformance for processors
18:29:11 <aryman> s/hsolorig/hsolbrig/
18:29:48 <aryman> hsolorig: propose to use formatting to distinguish type of info
18:30:00 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
18:30:03 <hsolbrig> s/hsolorig/hsolbrig/
18:30:11 <TallTed> SHACL authoring tool  ->  SHACL shape document  ->  SHACL-based validation processor *or* SHACL-based form constructor *or* other thing
18:32:04 <pfps> what are the other goals (besides validation)?  Is anyone working on this?
18:32:20 <pfps> q+
18:33:39 <hknublau> present+ hknublau
18:33:48 <aryman> TallTed: need to address other kinds of processors besides validators
18:34:24 <ericP> ack next
18:35:08 <aryman> pops: need to tighten up spec language to refer to validation versus a generic engine
18:35:22 <aryman> s/pops/pfps/
18:36:04 <pfps> if anyone wants the other uses of SHACL to survive then someone has to do the work
18:36:08 <aryman> aryman: fyi, my browser keeps autocorrecting names
18:37:10 <pfps> q+
18:37:49 <aryman> ericP: asks TallTed if he will look at these other aspects of SHACL, such as UI forms
18:37:53 <pfps> q-
18:38:25 <hsolbrig> q+
18:39:14 <TallTed> that's the third.  documentation, forms generation, and data validation.
18:39:23 <aryman> hsolbrig: I am interested in generating documentation from SHACL
18:40:32 <pfps> there is no way that I can be at all sensitive to something that is not defined
18:41:17 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-94
18:41:33 <pfps> q-
18:42:39 <pfps> q+
18:42:47 <ericP> ack next
18:43:01 <ericP> ack next
18:43:35 <aryman> hsolbrig: this issue is about referring to RDF syntax, e.g. rdf:List
18:44:05 <aryman> pfps: All we have is the RDF syntax so we need to refer to it
18:45:21 <aryman> ericP: we could possibly encode the syntax rules in the shacl.shacl document, or else define an abstract syntax
18:46:16 <aryman> pfps: not sure if an abstract syntax would help
18:46:38 <pfps> without a different syntax for SHACL it is somewhat hard to separate the document from the RDF encoding of SHACL
18:47:17 <pfps> the document does need a full rewrite to make the distinction between syntax and validation more obvious
18:48:05 <aryman> q+
18:48:30 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
18:48:38 <ericP> ack next
18:49:07 <aryman> aryman: we need a vocabulary
18:49:14 <pfps> one problem with the shacl document that described shacl syntax was that it embodied much more than is in the specification
18:49:27 <aryman> ... the shacl.shacl had 1000+ lines and contained many more terms than are in the spec
18:49:38 <pfps> hence the posts from Arthur and myself concerning ISSUE-95
18:49:52 <aryman> ... we should have a spec with an agreed vocab, only putting terms in the vocab if they're mentioned in the spec.
18:50:22 <pfps> I would make this even stronger - the terms have to have some rationale for being in the spec
18:52:37 <pfps> q+
18:53:12 <Labra> present+ labra
18:53:26 <hknublau> q+
18:54:16 <aryman> I propose that we coordinate efforts to create a normative vocabulary document for SHACL
18:54:27 <aryman> the source should be Turtle in github
18:54:40 <aryman> we can autogenerate HTML
18:54:59 <aryman> this process has been used at IBM, OSLC, and OASIS
18:55:22 <ericP> ack next
18:55:26 <aryman> looking for volunteer to be lead editor of the vocab
18:56:57 <aryman> pfps: I am not advocating the separation of the syntax and semantics
18:57:12 <ericP> ack next
18:57:31 <aryman> pfps: however if that happened I wouldn't object
18:57:34 <pfps> and so I would be willing to put any effort into the separation
18:58:24 <aryman> hknublau: I already have a Turtle file
18:58:29 <aryman> q+
18:58:35 <ericP> ack next
18:58:41 <pfps> there is also stuff in the ttl file pertaining to the implementation of the core constructs, isn't there?  if so, this is controversial
18:58:57 <aryman> aryman: there's a subset of shacl.shacl which is just fine but there is a lot of other stuff.
18:59:17 <aryman> ... there is more that is not mentioned in the spec than that which is mentioned in the spec
18:59:31 <pfps> q+
19:00:02 <ericP> ack next
19:00:59 <pfps> i didn't get that impression of the ttl file - I found lots of stuff there that went beyond the spec
19:02:00 <aryman> aryman: let's start with the subset of terms that have a rationale in the spec
19:02:05 <aryman> aryman: what about all the terms not discussed in the spec?
19:02:45 <aryman> pfps: agree that Holger's Turtle file has lots of terms that are not needed
19:03:11 <aryman> pfps: the spec should contain the least number of terms necessary
19:03:12 <pfps> specs should be about doing the least that is necessary
19:03:47 <aryman> ericP: reading the additional terms is a burden on readers
19:03:53 <pfps> q+
19:04:00 <ericP> ack next
19:04:12 <aryman> ericP: propose that Holger should create a subset of the doc
19:04:32 <aryman> pfps: disagree since there are circularities
19:04:59 <aryman> q+
19:05:22 <hknublau> q+
19:06:14 <aryman> pfps: Holger is treating SHACL as a modelling language, which is contrary to W3C guidance, and is contrary to what I believe SHACL should be
19:07:19 <ericP> ack next
19:08:14 <pfps> my view is that the shacl spec should not depend on the reference implementation of shacl, including those things that ended up in shacl.shacl
19:08:53 <ericP> pfps: there are many things in the shacl.shacl that shouldn't be there; some things missing from shacl.shacl, and some stuff in the spec which are only there because they were in the original shacl.shacl
19:10:23 <kcoyle> +1 to arthur's analysis
19:10:24 <aryman> aryman: i think it's elegant that shacl can describe itself, but it's not clear. we need a separate vocab doc.
19:10:40 <aryman> ... hknublau is passionate about the combination of shapes and classes.
19:10:51 <aryman> ... and we'll keep debating it
19:10:54 <ericP> ack next
19:11:56 <aryman> hknublau: hard to distinguish between a modelling language and a schema language
19:12:14 <aryman> knublau: what are you proposing?
19:12:16 <aryman> q+
19:12:36 <aryman> aryman: i'm proposing a plain old rdfs document.
19:12:49 <aryman> ... it's hard to define shacl in terms of shacl.
19:13:08 <aryman> ... start by defining the terms and then add the constraints
19:13:21 <aryman> ... the constraints are what's missing from OWL and RDF-S
19:13:38 <ericP> q+ to discuss XML Schema for XML Schema
19:13:39 <aryman> q+
19:14:00 <kcoyle> straw vote?
19:14:06 <TallTed> q+
19:14:20 <ericP> kcoyle, i'm trying to figure out what it would be
19:14:25 <ericP> ack next
19:15:06 <aryman> aryman: rationale for the speration of constraints and classes: use of a class depends on a context
19:15:26 <aryman> ... i'm coming from a linked-data world where there are individual docs
19:15:35 <aryman> ... you're coming from a database world
19:16:13 <kcoyle> we need to handle both use cases
19:16:45 <aryman> ... we need to separate the classes from the shapes in order
19:17:15 <aryman> aryman: we have different use cases, some require a separation of class versus shape since the shape depends on the context
19:17:38 <ericP> ack next
19:17:39 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to discuss XML Schema for XML Schema
19:17:44 <ericP> ack next
19:18:06 <aryman> ericP: fyi, the schema for XML schema exists as an appendix to the XML Schema spec but is not used to define or teach XML Schema
19:18:42 <aryman> TallTed: I agree that we should not describe a language using the language that we are describing
19:19:16 <aryman> TallTed: if people don't already understand SHACL then they won't understand a description of SHACL using SHACL
19:20:16 <aryman> kcoyle: propose a straw poll on using plain old RDFS or OWL to describe SHACL versus using SHACL to describe SHACL
19:22:10 <kcoyle> q+
19:23:13 <ericP> ack next
19:23:33 <aryman> ericP: we have several approaches 1) a modified shacl.shacl, 2) a RDFS or owl vocal, 3) abstract syntax, 4) plain English
19:24:27 <aryman> kcoyle: just 1) and 2)
19:24:44 <aryman> kcoyle: for the straw poll
19:24:58 <aryman> s/vocal/vocab/
19:25:54 <aryman> q+
19:26:40 <ericP> ack next
19:26:55 <aryman> kcoyle: we need to deliver an RDFS vocab for SHACL
19:27:32 <aryman> aryman: i want a vocab document that defines the SHACL terms but does not use SHACL.
19:27:56 <aryman> ... if you look at Holger's doc, you can think of it as a union of two sets of docs.
19:28:11 <aryman> ... one part is the doc i want
19:28:33 <TallTed> +1
19:28:33 <aryman> ... textually, people could read that doc without starting out understanding SHACL.
19:28:43 <aryman> ... the 2nd would eat our own dogfood.
19:28:49 <ericP> q?
19:31:30 <aryman> STRAWPOLL: 1) status quo of shacl.shacl as per Holger's current doc, 2) separate into a pure vocab doc, plus a shacl doc for validation
19:31:49 <aryman> -1,+1
19:32:03 <TallTed> +0.5, +1
19:32:11 <ericP> ericP: -0.5,+1
19:32:17 <hsolbrig> 0, +1
19:32:23 <Labra> -0,+1
19:32:25 <kcoyle> -1, +1
19:32:27 <Dimitris> +0.3, +1
19:32:33 <hknublau> +1, -0.5 (I think we could do both and generate the RDFS from the SHACL file)
19:32:34 <pfps> -1, 0  (something has to be done to shacl.shacl, but I'm not convinced that separation is the right approach)
19:33:38 <hknublau> hknublau has left #shapes
19:33:48 <ericP> RRSAgent, generate minutes
19:33:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/29-shapes-minutes.html ericP
19:33:54 <ericP> RRSAgent, make log public
19:53:12 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
20:09:32 <hknublau> hknublau has left #shapes
20:57:18 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #shapes
21:56:08 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #shapes
23:33:34 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #shapes
23:43:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #shapes
23:43:45 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #shapes