IRC log of shapes on 2016-01-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:55:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:55:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:55:52 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:55:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
18:55:54 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:55:54 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:55:55 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:55:55 [trackbot]
Date: 07 January 2016
18:57:56 [kcoyle]
kcoyle has joined #shapes
18:59:02 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
18:59:17 [Arnaud]
18:59:21 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
18:59:24 [Arnaud]
19:00:38 [aryman]
aryman has joined #shapes
19:01:04 [pfps]
19:01:18 [ericP]
19:01:31 [Labra]
Labra has joined #shapes
19:02:42 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
19:02:58 [Arnaud]
regrets: hsolbrig
19:04:20 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
19:05:26 [aryman]
i hear it too
19:05:33 [Labra]
* me too
19:06:51 [Dimitris]
present+ dimitris
19:07:07 [kcoyle]
present+ kcoyle
19:07:16 [Labra]
present+ labra
19:07:37 [Labra]
Arnaud: Wellcome back everybody...let's resume our work
19:08:03 [Labra]
Arnaud: we had a good meeting at the end of december
19:08:22 [Labra]
...minutes that need to be approved
19:08:24 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 10 December Telecon:
19:08:26 [pfps]
the minutes all looked OK to me
19:08:33 [pfps]
19:08:37 [aryman]
19:08:41 [Labra]
19:08:50 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 10 December Telecon:
19:08:57 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 15-17 December F2F:
19:09:02 [pfps]
19:09:05 [ericP]
19:09:08 [Labra]
19:09:10 [aryman]
19:09:21 [pfps]
19:09:35 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:10:02 [Labra]
pfps: there was a issue 115
19:10:14 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 15-17 December F2F:
19:10:14 [Labra]
arnaud: we can talk later about this
19:10:19 [pfps]
the description of issue 115 is rather vague
19:10:41 [Labra]
next week we will have a new meeting
19:10:53 [Labra]
next F2F will be somewhere in march
19:11:14 [Labra]
arnaud: for now there is one set of dates that seem to be working
19:11:39 [Labra]
...ask people to go ahead and enter the response into the poll
19:11:52 [Labra]
...before discussing issues
19:12:22 [pfps]
I pushed out the due date for my action (i.e., no action on my action yet).
19:12:35 [Labra]
...ask if there are some actions that could inform about their status
19:12:43 [aryman]
19:12:53 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:12:57 [kcoyle]
19:13:05 [Labra]
aryman: we had a little bit of discussion about the metamodel
19:13:07 [hknublau]
I frankly didn't do any Shapes work during the break. I expect to get back into that swing next week. I arrived back home yesterday.
19:13:38 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
19:14:00 [Labra]
kcoyle: I have later changes to use cases and requirements
19:14:21 [Labra]
...Simon and I could look at it and talk about it next week
19:14:53 [pfps]
a notice to the WG that the document is ready for review would help
19:15:59 [Labra]
arnaud: take a look at shapeClass issue
19:16:20 [Labra]
arnaud: everybody but Holger voted to get rid of shapeClass
19:16:43 [Labra]
...scopeClass could be improved but the group disagreed with it
19:17:26 [TallTed]
19:17:31 [Labra]
...there were othre people that weren't participating at the meeting, like Ted, that wanted to review it
19:18:11 [Labra]
...the proposal is to drop ShapeClass
19:18:12 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
19:18:41 [Labra]
TallTed: I have reviewed the thread about this and what I see from Holger is a frustration
19:18:53 [Labra]
...not really agreeing with what is going on
19:19:27 [Labra]
...Shacl is not to model the is a way to model data
19:19:50 [Labra]
...I want a proper phylosophical proof about that
19:20:12 [Labra]
...its nonsense to say that a shape description is not a model
19:20:32 [Labra]
...using a proper definition of fully formed ontology as a shape definition is valid use
19:20:59 [Labra]
...we reuse things all the time
19:21:13 [Labra]
...and we reuse them in this instance of my data server it is...
19:21:25 [Labra]
...something in my domain
19:21:36 [Labra]
...context matters...shacl is a modelling language
19:21:55 [Labra]
...when we say that this shape is something, then it is something in a model
19:22:09 [Labra]
...I am not inclined to vote in favor of this resolution
19:22:39 [Labra]
arnaud: I understand but we don't want to go into that phylosophical discussion
19:22:51 [Labra]
...we need to move forward one way or the other
19:23:29 [Labra]
...what we have done is that when a shape is a class, the we can use the scopeClass
19:23:43 [Labra]
...there can be a point to itself
19:24:01 [Labra]
...I think you did valid points but I don't know if anyone will convince anyone at that level
19:24:05 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23, dropping ShapeClass
19:24:29 [pfps]
19:24:30 [ericP]
19:24:33 [aryman]
19:24:36 [Labra]
19:24:43 [TallTed]
19:24:59 [Dimitris]
+1 but woudn't mind a softer alternative
19:25:01 [kcoyle]
19:25:16 [hknublau]
I could live with dropping ShapeClass, but as written the inference rule to infer sh:scopeClass is still in.
19:26:03 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23, dropping ShapeClass, with no inferencing of sh:scopeClass
19:26:09 [ericP]
19:26:11 [hknublau]
19:26:12 [aryman]
19:26:19 [Labra]
19:26:25 [TallTed]
19:26:33 [pfps]
19:26:55 [kcoyle]
19:27:23 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: drop ShapeClass
19:27:38 [hknublau]
19:27:39 [ericP]
19:27:43 [aryman]
19:27:46 [Labra]
19:27:49 [TallTed]
19:27:50 [kcoyle]
19:27:55 [pfps]
19:28:04 [Dimitris]
+1 but woudn't mind a softer alternative
19:28:16 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: drop ShapeClass
19:28:49 [Labra]
arnaud: now let's attack the second part
19:29:22 [Arnaud]
STRAWPOLL: a) allow inferencing of sh:scopeClass, b) no inferencing of sh:scopeClass
19:29:26 [aryman]
19:29:30 [pfps]
19:29:49 [Labra]
aryman: can we have a recap of the inference that is being proposed?
19:29:55 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:29:57 [Labra] what degree is inferencing done?
19:30:11 [pfps]
making the inference is different from allowing it to happen
19:30:13 [Labra] it just a explicit type link or should there be other indirect relations
19:30:39 [Labra]
Holger: I believe it has the be in the shapes graph
19:30:58 [Labra] needs to make possible that the shape is also a subclass of rdf:class
19:31:20 [aryman]
19:31:29 [Labra]
...there is nothing that we have to worry could have been done before
19:31:47 [Arnaud]
19:31:53 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:32:08 [Labra]
pfps: now we have just come out with a new kind of requirement
19:32:16 [Labra]
...the type must be explicit...
19:32:26 [Labra]
it is different from every thing else in SHACL
19:32:46 [Labra]
Holger: I don't see that difference
19:32:57 [Labra]
pfps: you said that it must be explicit
19:33:34 [Labra]
Holger: any subclass can also be
19:33:47 [aryman]
here is the current spec text for inferencing:
19:33:48 [Labra]
pfps: that's yet another different thing
19:34:05 [Labra] you are going to the previous shacl
19:34:11 [aryman]
we should use just one definition in all cases where we do "inferencing"
19:34:25 [Labra]
...but now we are using a weird kind of rdfs modeling that's different from rdfs modelling
19:34:37 [Labra]
holger: in other places we have done that
19:34:53 [Labra]
...if the inference is done, that's good, but that's not our business
19:35:10 [Labra]
pfps: this really increases our need to have rdfs reasoning
19:35:29 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:35:46 [aryman]
we should be consistent with sh:class :
19:36:08 [pfps]
If SHACL depends on whether a node is an RDFS class then it should be doing RDFS reasoning to determine that
19:36:56 [Labra]
arnaud: Holger, it sounds like you need to take this offline and come with a proposal about what kind of inferencing should be done
19:37:03 [Labra]
aryman: I agree with what Peter said
19:37:24 [Labra]
...if we do any kinf of class inferencing we should do it one way
19:37:40 [Labra]
...if holger is happy to use that definition of inferencing we could just use that
19:38:10 [Labra]
...if people want to do more inferencing then they should do that in another stage
19:38:26 [Labra]
Ted: a change could be to substitute rdfs:Class for sh:class
19:38:35 [Labra]
aryman: No, they are different
19:39:00 [Labra]
Ted: sh:class has the inferencing that Holger is describing
19:39:10 [Labra]
...and that accomplish whay is desired
19:39:26 [Labra]
19:39:31 [pfps]
sh:class is a property rdfs:Class is a class, substituting one for the other does not make sense
19:39:42 [Dimitris]
19:39:44 [TallTed]
{ ex:MyShapeAndClass a sh:Class, sh:Shape } would imply { ex:MyShapeAndClass sh:scopeClass ex:MyShapeAndClass }
19:40:26 [Labra]
aryman: if we limit the inferencing to what we already agreed then some of the objections could be solved
19:40:34 [Arnaud]
ack Dimitris
19:40:39 [TallTed]
s/substitute rdfs:Class for sh:class/substitute sh:Class for rdfs:Class/
19:40:41 [pfps]
sh:Class is not part of SHACL
19:41:13 [Labra]
** Dimitris...didn't get what you said
19:42:13 [TallTed]
@pfps - sh:class. case sensitivity is SpEcIaL.
19:42:28 [Labra]
arnaud: there is rule for some agreement...
19:42:37 [Labra]
...we could leave it as is for today
19:42:52 [Labra]
...we can use the proposals space to work on more possibilities
19:43:47 [Labra]
aryman: it is up to holger to clarify the proposal
19:44:44 [Labra]
holger: the main reason for me to accept the discussion is that Peter has threaten to reopen the whole WG
19:45:14 [TallTed]
actually... what we do need is sh:Class (a rdfs:Class) which requires no reasoning beyond what is required for sh:class (a rdfs:Property)
19:45:27 [Labra]
pfps: I am confused about what has been proposed
19:45:45 [Labra]
...if someone wants to propose something it must be more powerful
19:46:00 [hknublau]
OK I will start a proposal.
19:47:07 [Labra]
arnaud: where are we with the draft and the spec?
19:47:08 [hknublau]
19:47:12 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:47:13 [pfps]
I think that republishing soon is a good idea.
19:47:41 [Labra]
holger: as I wrote earlier I was in holydays so I regret to inform that I didn't do more work on it
19:47:59 [Labra]
...after a few days I will have more free time
19:48:33 [Labra]
...we didn't work yet about the metamodeling
19:48:37 [aryman]
19:49:03 [Labra]
arnaud: it would be nice if by next week you could inform about what has been implemented and what haven't
19:49:05 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:49:29 [Labra]
aryman: is there something where the resolutions are summarized?
19:49:53 [Labra]
arnaud: the compilation is in the web page
19:51:51 [aryman]
Resolutions page:
19:52:17 [Labra]
arnaud: let's talk about a issue that aryman found
19:52:25 [Labra]
aryman: a shape has a scope and a filter
19:52:46 [Labra]
...and the usual constraints...the question is about the filter
19:53:01 [Labra]
...we should make the filter to be associated with the constraints, not the scope
19:53:16 [Labra]
...we first apply the filter criteria, then the shape passes
19:53:36 [ericP]
q+ to ask about shape annotations
19:53:43 [Labra]
the filter could be an if-then construction
19:54:03 [Labra]
...filter's should be as preconditions
19:54:10 [Labra]
...this related to issue 49
19:54:19 [Labra]
19:54:32 [pfps]
I don't think that the status of filters has much to do with issue 49
19:54:35 [Labra]
arnaud: Dimitris, is that the issue you raised?
19:54:59 [Labra]
Dimitris: He wants aryman to clarify what he proposed
19:55:42 [Labra]
aryman: you are given a node and apply a shape to evaluate the shape to it
19:56:28 [pfps]
A node validates against a shape if it does not satisfy the filter or does satisfy the constraints
19:57:12 [Labra]
aryman: the scoping mechanism is about computing which nodes in the graph should be checked
19:58:08 [Labra]
Dimitris: my issue was more about the scope relation with the filter
19:59:48 [Labra]
aryman: the filter is always used when you compute the scope but is also used when you apply the shape
20:00:06 [Labra]
Dimitris: my issue was about how to relate scopes with constraints and filters
20:00:14 [Labra]
...and valueShape
20:00:48 [Labra]
aryman: scoping is a way to enumerate a set of nodes that you want to evaluate
20:01:25 [Labra]
...once you get those nodes, you apply the filter
20:01:41 [Labra]
arnaud: the filter is like a pre-condition to apply the rest of the shape
20:03:18 [Labra]
aryman: if you don't differentiate between those two: scopes and filters then there is no need to have them both
20:03:18 [ericP]
20:03:29 [hknublau]
Why no straw poll?
20:03:33 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
20:03:33 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to ask about shape annotations
20:04:30 [Labra]
ericP: there are two uses of this
20:05:15 [Labra]
...we use the shapes as a typing mechanism on the nodes
20:05:28 [Labra]
...there 2 ways in which scopes can be used
20:06:21 [Labra] shacl I've seem two uses of filters
20:07:39 [Labra]
arnaud: I think the proposal may not be so mature to do a straw-poll
20:07:55 [Labra] seems that the interaction between filters and scopes should be clarified
20:08:40 [TallTed]
20:09:02 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
20:09:13 [Labra]
Ted: I am not understanding the flow
20:09:25 [Labra]
...I would like to see an example from arthur
20:09:28 [aryman]
20:09:56 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:10:09 [Labra]
aryman: this is described in the spec to some degree
20:10:16 [Labra]
...but there is some ambiguity
20:10:46 [Labra]
...there is a diagram in the spec
20:11:41 [aryman]
see the diagram above 2.1:
20:12:40 [Labra]
arnaud: issue 115 about closed shape
20:12:53 [Labra]
...there is no description
20:13:08 [Labra]
...lets take to review it
20:13:22 [ericP]
20:13:27 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
20:13:46 [Labra]
20:14:43 [Labra]
ericP: the goal of closed shapes is to address the problem where one post something that is not what one expects, then it is rejected
20:15:02 [Labra]
...that has more information than the one that is described by the shape
20:15:30 [Labra]
...the point of closed shape is to have a flag that one is not interested in other data than the one that is mentioned in the schema
20:15:48 [aryman]
20:16:11 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
20:16:14 [Labra]
arnaud: part of the issue is at what level it is specified...shape?
20:16:43 [Labra]
aryman: I didn't quite get what eric he saying that the current definition is wrong in the spec?
20:17:18 [Labra]
ericP: the current definition doesn't do everything that one would want
20:17:34 [Labra]
...I would like it to be defined about predicates that are defined in the schema
20:17:35 [TallTed]
I thought the point was to say "this node must only have relations that match what I've included in my shape, and nothing else; else it fails validation"
20:18:44 [Labra]
ericP: I support your observation that it should be associated with shapes
20:19:16 [Labra]
aryman: it is a kind of constraint but from a language design point of view it should be associated with a shape
20:19:27 [Labra] is mainly a syntax thing
20:19:39 [Labra]
...about where we put this property
20:20:02 [Labra]
holger: it is at the level of constraints, instead of shapes
20:20:10 [Labra]
...but both views could be valid
20:21:00 [Labra]
** I lost what Holger said
20:21:17 [Labra]
** Holger, maybe you want to write it?
20:22:00 [hknublau]
hknublau: TO summarize, I believe all constraints that actually produce violations should be grouped with the same syntax, under sh:constraint, sh:property, sh:inverseProperty.
20:22:17 [hknublau]
... The case to introduce an exception for sh:closed is not strong enough IMHO.
20:23:30 [Labra]
** thanks
20:23:32 [pfps]
20:23:39 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
20:23:58 [Labra]
pfps: asks about the status of the tests
20:24:17 [Labra]
...I have a bunch of tests that I would be happy to put in the test harness
20:24:33 [Labra]
ericP: I will show you what we are using in the ShEx test harness
20:24:36 [ericP]
20:25:32 [hknublau]
Isn't the latest spec at ?
20:25:33 [ericP]
20:28:47 [Labra]
ericP: describes the structure of the tests manifest
20:29:12 [Labra]
pfps: it doesn't fit well in shacl
20:29:35 [Arnaud]
20:30:35 [Labra]
ericP: that's the original document that we are using for the ShEx test
20:31:52 [Labra]
pfps: I will take a look at it and write some tests
20:32:13 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
20:32:13 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
20:32:13 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, pfps, ericP, dimitris, kcoyle, labra
20:32:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:32:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
20:32:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
20:32:22 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items