18:58:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:58:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/21-shapes-irc
18:58:13 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:58:13 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:58:15 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:58:15 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:58:16 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:58:16 <trackbot> Date: 21 January 2016
18:58:31 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.01.21
18:58:36 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:58:47 <Arnaud> regrets: hsolbrig
18:58:50 <Arnaud> present+
18:59:50 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
19:00:51 <Arnaud> present+ kcoyle, simonstey, ericP
19:02:05 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
19:02:09 <Dimitris> Dimitris has joined #shapes
19:02:10 <pfps> present+
19:02:42 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
19:02:50 <aryman> present+ aryman
19:03:16 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
19:04:58 <hknublau> present+
19:05:59 <kcoyle> kcoyle has joined #shapes
19:06:13 <kcoyle> present+ kcoyle
19:07:26 <Labra> present+ labra
19:08:07 <Dimitris> present+
19:08:12 <TallTed> present+
19:08:21 <TallTed> scribenick: TallTed
<TallTed> topic: Admin
19:08:24 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 14 January Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/14-shapes-minutes.html
19:08:34 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 14 January Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/14-shapes-minutes.html
19:08:38 <pfps> Looked OK by me
19:09:24 <TallTed> topic: UCR draft
19:10:30 <TallTed> Arnaud: are we ready?
19:10:46 <TallTed> kcoyle & simonstey: think so...
19:11:06 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: publish the latest UCR Editor's draft http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/
19:11:21 <pfps> I think that UCR is OK to go (I only did a quick glance, but I don't see any issues).
19:11:36 <kcoyle> +1
19:11:38 <aryman> +1
19:11:39 <TallTed> +1
19:11:43 <Labra> +1
19:11:43 <pfps> +1
19:11:43 <Dimitris> +1
19:11:43 <simonstey> +1
19:12:03 <ericP> +1
19:12:16 <hknublau> +1
19:12:30 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Publish the latest UCR Editor's draft http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/
19:14:23 <TallTed> Arnaud: let's talk about Karen's questions, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0093.html
19:15:40 <TallTed> kcoyle: I did a review of UCR vs current spec, and flagged the things I couldn't clearly match
19:16:06 <TallTed> Arnaud: seems best to stay with email for this for now; please everyone take a look!
19:20:00 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-22: recursion, https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/22
19:20:10 <pfps> I believe that the document reflects the recent resolution on recursion.
19:20:21 <pfps> However, I do not think that ACTION-29 has been completed.
19:22:01 <hknublau_> hknublau_ has joined #shapes
19:22:18 <TallTed> aryman: spec disallowed recursion. more recently we've been exploring some ways to allow it in certain circumstances, but spec'ese of this has not yet been done
19:23:09 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
19:23:50 <TallTed> [ discussion echoing aryman ... ACTION-29 remains open ]
19:24:43 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-23: ShapeClass, https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:25:19 <TallTed> s/ACTION-29 remains/ACTION-29 and ISSUE-22 remain/
19:26:24 <TallTed> aryman: in the course of updating for issue-23, I discovered another issue...
19:27:16 <TallTed> ... determination of Class/subClass looks to data graph in some places and shape graph in others
19:27:41 <pfps> q+
19:28:04 <TallTed> ... this needs some additional clarity if not consistency
19:29:52 <TallTed> ... computing shapes graph is up to application calling validator, so it seems pulling such Class triples from data graph should be easily done there, if needed
19:29:55 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:30:25 <TallTed> ... SHACL validator probably shouldn't be made to do this
19:31:10 <hknublau> q+
19:32:06 <TallTed> pfps: class-based reasoning is very complicated, and has to be explicitly covered if it's to be part of SHACL processor implementation
19:32:18 <ericP> q+ to say that the SPARQL approach is to work over ground facts, which may be a "virtual" product of inference
19:34:27 <TallTed> aryman: right, so calling application should pull all { $x a rdfs:class } and { $a rdfs:subClassOf $b } triples into shape graph
19:34:30 <TallTed> pfps: not enough
19:34:54 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:35:30 <TallTed> hknublau: I think that `scopeClass` and `shapeClass inference` are different; shouldn't be thrown together
19:35:45 <TallTed> ... person creating shapes will often be different than person using those shapes
19:35:53 <aryman> s/rdfs:class/rdfs:Class/
19:37:03 <TallTed> ... so explicit class declarations must be left to the shape creator
19:37:15 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:37:15 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that the SPARQL approach is to work over ground facts, which may be a "virtual" product of inference
19:37:28 <TallTed> ... pulling 50,000 class definitions (in one real ontology) across is not viable
19:38:26 <aryman> q+
19:39:37 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:40:14 <TallTed> aryman: pfps's objections apply to what existed before as much as revision
19:40:41 <TallTed> ... question is currently which graph is used to determine whether something is an rdfs:Class or not
19:41:03 <TallTed> pfps: I thought the only thing that mattered was class membership in the data graph
19:41:16 <TallTed> ... that now seems not to be so
19:42:11 <TallTed> ... the current thread says that much I would consider to be outside the data graph comes into play
19:42:44 <hknublau> q+
19:42:57 <TallTed> ... current issue is the requirement to determine whether a shape is also a class.
19:44:09 <TallTed> aryman: issues arise because we chose to describe our shapes using RDF, making it possible to do shape-class reasoning over the shape graph
19:44:31 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:44:32 <TallTed> ... we can simply state that *all* class-based reasoning must be based entirely on the data graph
19:45:53 <TallTed> hknublau: anyone creating a shape definition can just import any relevant ontology, to inherit such class defs
19:46:36 <TallTed> pfps: there might not be an ontology graph to import.  such is not required by any other spec.  relying on it is thus problematic.
19:47:23 <aryman> q+
19:47:35 <TallTed> hknublau: a person writing shape definition knows which classes they're talking about, so can import, create, or whatever as needed
19:47:46 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:49:05 <pfps> q+
19:49:24 <TallTed> aryman: the inconsistency I thought I was seeing is minor, and can be easily addressed without changing spec substantially
19:49:42 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:50:34 <TallTed> pfps: as far as I can tell, SHACL doc is inconsistent. in different places, it says to look at different evidence to make what appears to be the same determination.
19:51:39 <TallTed> ... the existing inferable inconsistency is better than making it an explicit inconsistency.
19:52:13 <pfps> the spec needs to be changed so that it has a clear specification of how to handle the various class-related questions
19:52:31 <pfps> q+
19:52:39 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:52:40 <aryman> fyi we are taking about http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scopeClass
19:54:35 <aryman> q+
19:55:14 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:55:17 <aryman> I will change that to say "If a resource X is both a shape and a class ..."
19:56:40 <pfps> changing behaviour is not word smithing!
19:56:41 <TallTed> [ pfps and aryman discuss possible rewording to resolve concern ]
19:57:11 <aryman> "If a resource X in the shapes graph is both a shape and a class ..."
19:57:40 <TallTed> topic: ISSUE-115: ClosedShape, http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/115
19:58:15 <aryman> q+
19:58:31 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:58:56 <TallTed> Arnaud: reconsideration of resolution may be appropriate, looking at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jan/0060.html
19:59:02 <pfps> q+
19:59:09 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:59:34 <TallTed> aryman: resolution seems OK, might mean we need a couple new things to address these concerns
19:59:44 <pfps> if shapes can have severity then use that severity for closed violations
20:00:56 <TallTed> hknublau: I believe there are real use cases where closedness will be applicable to part but not all of a given shape, or within context of a filter
20:01:21 <hknublau> ex:MyShape sh:constraint sh:Closed .
20:01:30 <hknublau> ex:MyShape sh:closed true
20:02:32 <hknublau> ex:MyShape sh:constraint [ sh:closed true ]
20:03:07 <aryman> q+
20:03:31 <TallTed> ... previous setup allowed for many user-friendly shortcuts, which resolution disallows
20:03:47 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:04:20 <simonstey> ignore property thingy
20:04:29 <TallTed> aryman: this nuance about rdf:type -- under what circumstances can we ignore rdf:type?
20:04:57 <hknublau> ex:MyShape sh:constraint sh:ClosedIgnoringRDFTYpe .
20:05:49 <TallTed> hknublau: it's not an existing special case, but it could be, and I believe would be valuable
20:07:25 <pfps> q+
20:07:51 <TallTed> TallTed: I'm inclined to the reconsideration
20:07:54 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:08:22 <TallTed> Arnaud: if it were just me, I feel inclined to to bow to hknublau's arguments
20:09:49 <TallTed> pfps: doesn't feel like a good solution to me.  closure can't be determined locally.
20:09:49 <TallTed> ... have to look at all constraints associated with ... the shape the constraint is attached to.
20:09:49 <TallTed> ... and what happens if this is beneath an `and` constraint.
20:09:50 <TallTed> ... this doesn't act entirely like a constraint, so we shouldn't treat it like one
20:10:25 <aryman> q+
20:10:32 <Dimitris> if we have severity at the shape level, then all shape constraints can inherit the shape severity (unless they override it)
20:10:34 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:10:38 <TallTed> ... all that said, it won't cause decline and fall of Roman Empire to be so treated
20:12:08 <TallTed> aryman: it might be the case that the author wants to know about extra properties, but they won't break everything
20:15:43 <aryman> sh:closed sh:Hopefully
20:16:03 <simonstey> sh:closed sh:mostly
20:19:03 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Change Rersolution of ISSUE-115 to have sh:closed on sh:constraint instead of sh:Shape
20:20:28 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Change Rersolution of ISSUE-115 to have sh:closed on sh:NodeConstraint instead of sh:Shape, and define sh:Closed as syntactic sugar
20:20:45 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Change Resolution of ISSUE-115 to have sh:closed on sh:NodeConstraint instead of sh:Shape, and define sh:Closed as syntactic sugar
20:20:53 <hknublau> +1
20:20:54 <TallTed> +1
20:20:56 <simonstey> +1
20:21:01 <aryman> +0
20:21:11 <pfps> 0
20:21:13 <ericP> 0
20:21:14 <kcoyle> +0 but I believe Holger
20:21:16 <Labra> -0
20:21:19 <Dimitris> 0
20:21:43 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Change Resolution of ISSUE-115 to have sh:closed on sh:NodeConstraint instead of sh:Shape, and define sh:Closed as syntactic sugar
20:23:08 <hknublau> q+
20:23:22 <pfps> With those two changes I think that the draft can go out.
20:23:35 <kcoyle> q+
20:23:38 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
20:24:16 <aryman> I will update the text for ISSUE-23 today
20:24:36 <hknublau> I will handle sh:closed today
20:24:47 <TallTed> topic: SHACL draft
20:24:52 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
20:25:30 <TallTed> [ previous PWD incorrect mailing list has been fixed ]
20:26:15 <TallTed> [ let's try to publicize better this time, try to drum up more public review and response ]
20:27:21 <pfps> Sending something to the appropriate W3C mailing lists would be good.
20:27:40 <pfps> I'm happy with publishing "as is" (i.e. with the changes mentioned).
20:27:57 <TallTed> +1 publish after today's changes are applied
20:28:06 <aryman> +1 to publish
20:28:19 <Dimitris> +1
20:28:23 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Pending edits regarding issue-23 and issue-115, publish the updated SHACL draft
20:28:30 <pfps> +1
20:28:37 <hknublau> +1
20:29:10 <kcoyle> +1
20:29:11 <simonstey> +1
20:29:14 <aryman> +1
20:29:18 <ericP> +1
20:29:19 <TallTed> +1
20:29:22 <Dimitris> +1
20:29:26 <Labra> +1
20:29:38 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Pending edits regarding issue-23 and issue-115, publish the updated SHACL draft
20:30:01 <pfps> test cases for next week?
20:30:51 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:30:51 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:30:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, kcoyle, simonstey, ericP, pfps, aryman, hknublau, labra, Dimitris, TallTed
20:30:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:30:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/21-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:31:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:31:00 <RRSAgent> I see no action items