18:59:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:59:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-shapes-irc
18:59:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:59:41 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:59:43 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:59:43 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:59:44 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:59:44 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
18:59:44 <trackbot> Date: 03 December 2015
18:59:49 <pfps> present+
18:59:59 <kcoyle> present+
19:00:15 <pfps> scribenick pfps
19:00:45 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
19:00:53 <aryman> present+ aryman
19:00:53 <Arnaud> present+
19:01:01 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
19:01:07 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.12.03
19:01:31 <Arnaud> scribenick: pfps
19:05:01 <Arnaud> regrets: hknublau, hsolbrig, dimitris
19:07:38 <pfps> Topic:  Administrivia
19:07:51 <pfps> arnaud: many people missing
19:08:00 <pfps> kcoyle: I can do a report from a meeting last week
19:08:40 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
19:08:57 <pfps> arthur: I talked with Holger and we made some progress
19:09:41 <Arnaud> present+ labra
19:10:45 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 19 November Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-shapes-minutes.html
19:10:54 <pfps> minutes looked OK
19:11:16 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 19 November Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-shapes-minutes.html
19:12:22 <aryman> thx to Arnaud for collecting the Resolutions
19:12:28 <pfps> arnaud: the page on resolutions is now in reverse chronological order
19:12:39 <pfps> Topic: F2F5
19:12:51 <pfps> arnaud: virtual F2F is two weeks from today
19:13:08 <aryman> q+
19:13:27 <pfps> arnaud:  timing will be midway between US Pacific and European time (Newfoundland)
19:13:49 <pfps> arnaud:  I want to tackle the hard issues
19:14:19 <pfps> arnaud:  If anyone has such please bring them forward
19:14:59 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:15:04 <pfps> q+
19:16:02 <pfps> arthur: big issue is difference between SHACL and ShEx
19:16:16 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:16:36 <pfps> pfps: how should we bring these up?
19:16:50 <pfps> arnaud: wiki page section OK?
19:17:27 <pfps> pfps: works for me, but we should point to that from the WG main page
19:18:40 <pfps> pfps:  issues SHACL vs ShEX, recursion, UI, implementation vs specification
19:18:42 <kcoyle> makes sense to me, too
19:19:11 <pfps> arnaud: some of this is meta-level discussion not particularly related to a single issue
19:19:47 <pfps> arnaud: a decision on doing UI at all would have effects on several issues
19:21:14 <pfps> arnaud: F2F schedule is currently on Newfoundland time (-3.5)
19:21:40 <pfps> arnaud: there is no reason to cut off the last day for travel reasons because there will be no travel involved
19:22:14 <pfps> arnaud: making three equal days means later start and earlier end, which makes things easier for everyone
19:22:16 <pfps> q+
19:22:23 <pfps> kcoyle: +1
19:22:31 <pfps> pfps: +1
19:22:50 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:22:51 <aryman> +1
19:23:12 <pfps> arnaud: three six-hour days would give the same overall time
19:23:28 <pfps> arnaud:  I'll adjust the schedule accordingly
19:24:15 <pfps> this means at 6am PST start and an 8pm CET end
19:24:21 <pfps> Topic: SWIB Meeting report
19:24:53 <pfps> kcoyle: SWIB meeting - Semantic Web in Bibliotech(?)
19:25:12 <pfps> kcoyle: I gave a short talk on SHACL that had quite a bit of interest
19:25:32 <pfps> kcoyle: There is someone working with SHACL from this community
19:27:14 <pfps> Topic: Categorization of ISSUEs
19:28:03 <pfps> arnaud: tracker had only a very few "products"/categories
19:28:28 <pfps> arnaud: I added a few new ones to better characterize some of the issues

19:29:20 <aryman> 1+
19:29:50 <pfps> arnaud: other WG members can go ahead and add new products and associate issues with products
19:30:40 <aryman> q+
19:31:00 <pfps> arnaud: comments?
19:31:01 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:31:19 <pfps> arthur: is there any connection between products and deliverables?
19:32:05 <pfps> arnaud: it makes sense to have deliverables as products, but informally making sub-products helps to distinguish different bits of work
19:32:30 <pfps> arthur: I like the splitting out of SHACL-SPARQL
19:32:57 <pfps> arthur: I'd like putting the SPARQL stuff into a separate document
19:34:01 <pfps> arthur: splitting has been discussed in the past, holger thought that that would diminish the importance of SPARQL
19:35:31 <pfps> arnaud: TQ was worried that document splits might negatively affect the specification
19:35:54 <pfps> arnaud: I would like to defer this and focus on the issues for now, though
19:36:32 <pfps> arnaud: feel free to add new products, particularly SHACL- products, for major components of SHACL
19:37:01 <TallTed> there is no connection required/mandated between products and deliverables, though this is typical.
19:37:02 <TallTed> sub-deliverables being treated as distinct products has helped in other groups.
<pfps> topic: ShEx update
19:38:17 <pfps> arnaud: there are a number of people who are not on the call and have not sent regrets
19:38:40 <pfps> arnaud: Eric in particular said that he would talk about ShEX
19:39:18 <pfps> arnaud: having the ShEX people more involved with SHACL is desirable
19:40:21 <pfps> arnaud: Eric has said that there is an extensive test suite for ShEX that can be transformed into a test suite for SHACL
19:41:10 <pfps> labra: we have been working on ShEX, I am not prepared for today because Erica was going to be talking
19:41:33 <pfps> labra: we have a test suite, which can be used for some parts of SHACL
19:41:46 <pfps> labra: I have been comparing the expressiveness of SHACL and ShEX
19:41:59 <pfps> labra: I have a page on the comparison
19:42:18 <pfps> labra: we have a paper on the comparison
19:42:23 <pfps> q+
19:42:29 <Labra> https://github.com/labra/ShExcala/wiki/ShExC-vs-SHACL
19:43:24 <pfps> labra: ... is the page on the comparison between SHACL and ShEx
19:45:03 <pfps> labra: one significant difference is a property that has a property that is optional but if present must be a particular value
19:45:37 <pfps> labra: the paper also has a preliminary performance comparison
19:46:39 <pfps> arnaud: great work
19:46:54 <pfps> arnaud: it might be more productive to do this sort of work collaboratively
19:47:24 <pfps> arnaud: it would be useful to get information out to the working group before the F2F so that WG members can prepare
19:47:37 <Labra> q+
19:47:50 <Labra> http://shex.io/
19:48:00 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:48:12 <pfps> labra: link to primer on ShEx and other information
19:48:19 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:49:41 <pfps> pfps: i don't find the preparation of a paper comparing ShEx and SHACL particularly heartwarming
19:49:42 <Labra> q+
19:50:11 <pfps> arnaud: sharing between ShEx and SHACL sooner would be more helpful, I think
19:50:23 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:51:03 <pfps> labra: this paper started several years ago, on ShEx only
19:51:33 <pfps> labra: I was asked to compare with SHACL
19:51:49 <pfps> labra: the performance results were a surprise to me
19:52:41 <pfps> labra: ShEx performance is quite good compared to SHACL at the moment
19:54:05 <pfps> labra: I have been sending information into the working group mailing list
19:54:45 <pfps> arnaud: this is useful material for the working group so that it can make better choices for SHACL
19:55:45 <pfps> arnaud: it does have the danger of being a pissing contest between ShEx and SHACL
19:56:06 <Labra> q+
19:56:16 <Arnaud> ack Labra
19:56:28 <pfps> arnaud: let's make sure that the working group can benefit from this
19:57:00 <pfps> labra: this paper draft has just become readable
19:57:43 <pfps> labra: the spirit of the paper is compare and propose
19:58:33 <aryman> q+
19:59:14 <pfps> arnaud: there are three issues on the agenda that could be discussed, but there are few people on the call today
19:59:21 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:59:43 <pfps> arthur: jose says that he has written a paper
19:59:51 <Labra> http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj1260.pdf
19:59:53 <pfps> labra: the link to the paper is on the paper
20:00:34 <pfps> labra: it has been submitted
20:01:03 <pfps> arthur: can you put a pointer on the WG wiki
20:01:20 <pfps> labra: it is under review, but  I could do so
20:02:02 <aryman> Other Input Documents
20:02:08 <pfps> arthur: the appropriate section would be other input documents
20:02:10 <aryman> on https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page
20:02:12 <Labra> Another paper: http://www.epsiplatform.eu/sites/default/files/Linked%20Data%20Validation%20and%20Quality.pdf
20:03:19 <pfps> arnaud:  we don't have enough people on the call to close technical issues
20:03:30 <pfps> arnaud: is there anything to be discussed?
20:04:06 <pfps> arthur: what is the proposal for issue 23
20:04:24 <pfps> Topic: Issue-23
20:04:27 <pfps> issue-23
20:04:27 <trackbot> issue-23 -- Shapes as classes -- open
20:04:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
20:05:03 <pfps> arnaud: this has been discussed at length
20:05:17 <pfps> arnaud: there are two possible views on modelling using SHACL
20:05:31 <pfps> arnaud: holger has backed down quite a bit
20:05:45 <aryman> q+
20:06:19 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:06:32 <pfps> arnaud: his proposal is to not have shapeclass but to have an implicit looping scope link when a shape is also a class
20:06:55 <pfps> arthur: this is just a shortcut, so I'm in favour
20:07:09 <pfps> q+
20:07:18 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:07:59 <aryman> q+
20:08:23 <pfps> pfps: i find shapes as classes as morally repugnant
20:09:29 <pfps> pfps: I worry about objections from RDFS people
20:10:00 <pfps> tallted: why are we worrying about future objections, that's just picking fights
20:10:56 <pfps> tallted: we are at a point were we need to make the best compromise we can come up with and let the objections come forward as they may
20:11:05 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:11:37 <pfps> arthur: why does pfps find this morally repugnant?
20:12:59 <pfps> arthur: i think that we need to tighten the proposal up to determine how it works, e.g., when does this kick in
20:13:21 <pfps> arnaud: this implies some inferencing - when does this stop?
20:13:51 <pfps> pfps: SHACL does inferencing so we have already gone down that slope
20:15:18 <aryman> q+
20:15:30 <pfps> pfps: one of my problems with SHACL is that its inferencing is different from RDFS but on the same vocabulary
20:15:54 <pfps> pfps: my moral issue is that this is yet another push into modelling
20:16:12 <pfps> arnaud: this is the core of the disagreement
20:16:41 <pfps> pfps: it is likely that there will be objections no matter what happens here
20:17:10 <pfps> arnaud: it is now the time to come up with a compromise and let the objects happen
20:17:12 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:17:58 <pfps> arthur: we can keep out of trouble if we don't say inference, i.e., we don't talk about adding a new triple
20:18:23 <pfps> arthur: similarly transitive closure of subclass doesn't add new triples
20:18:25 <pfps> q+
20:18:31 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:18:40 <TallTed> q+
20:18:46 <pfps> pfps: that's abusing the work inference, you are still doing inference
20:19:27 <pfps> arthur: there are no extra triples, so there is nothing that any other tool can get at
20:19:53 <Arnaud> ack TallTed
20:20:16 <pfps> arnaud: we could have a section that precisely lays out what ¨inference¨ is being done
20:20:59 <pfps> tallted: inference means adding a triple so if you never articulate the triple then you are not doing inferencing
20:21:01 <pfps> q+
20:21:35 <pfps> arnaud: I bet holger wouldn't care how the wording is
20:21:52 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:22:14 <pfps> pfps: in RDF and RDFS inference is not tied to adding new triples
20:22:25 <aryman> q+
20:22:41 <pfps> arthur: whether the triples are materialized or not is a separate question
20:23:03 <pfps> s/arthur/arnaud/
20:23:13 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:23:55 <pfps> arthur: when you run a reasoner you see extra triples being added to the dataset
20:24:06 <pfps> q+
20:24:12 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:25:07 <pfps> pfps: that's a particular way of doing inference, there are lots of other kinds of inference
20:25:41 <pfps> tallted: we don't use inference in the usual sense
20:26:12 <pfps> tallted: a shapes language is a modelling language so I don't understand the objection
20:27:11 <TallTed> tallted: what else is a modelling language, but a way to describe a bunch of shapes?  what else is a shape description language, but a way to model a space?
20:27:37 <pfps> arnaud: I hope that we can can come up with a way forward that is acceptable
20:28:54 <pfps> arnaud: hopefully Eric will present next week
20:28:56 <pfps> q+
20:29:00 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:29:20 <pfps> pfps: if Eric is going to present next week, can we some materials beforehand
<pfps> Arnaud: I don't know that he has slides per se but I will ask Eric
20:29:25 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:29:25 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:29:25 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pfps, kcoyle, aryman, Arnaud, labra
20:29:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:29:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/03-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:29:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:29:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items