IRC log of shapes on 2016-01-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:56:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:56:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-shapes-irc
18:56:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:56:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
18:56:30 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:56:30 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:56:31 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:56:31 [trackbot]
Date: 28 January 2016
18:58:24 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
18:58:40 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.01.21
18:58:44 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
19:00:10 [Arnaud]
present+
19:01:33 [hsolbrig]
hsolbrig has joined #shapes
19:02:01 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
19:02:02 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
19:02:41 [aryman]
aryman has joined #shapes
19:03:17 [TallTed]
present+
19:03:17 [hknublau]
present+
19:03:18 [Arnaud]
regrets: simonstey
19:03:35 [aryman]
present+ aryman
19:03:44 [hsolbrig]
present+ hsolbrig
19:04:25 [Dimitris]
present+
19:04:33 [hsolbrig]
scribenic hsolbrig
19:04:41 [hsolbrig]
scribenic: hsolbrig
19:05:28 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 21 January Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/21-shapes-minutes.html
19:05:29 [ericP]
present+ ericP
19:05:40 [pfps]
look good to me
19:06:06 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 21 January Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/21-shapes-minutes.html
19:06:43 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: uc&r draft was republished
19:07:18 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: last week we agreed to publish the SHACL draft pending minor editing of issue 23
19:07:19 [aryman]
q+
19:07:29 [Labra]
Labra has joined #shapes
19:07:43 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:07:45 [Labra]
present+ labra
19:08:22 [hsolbrig]
aryman: what is akidna?
19:08:29 [aryman]
echinda
19:08:35 [aryman]
echidna
19:08:37 [hsolbrig]
s/akidna/echidna
19:09:25 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: a simplified document publishing mechanism, republishing is automatic once initial doc is in
19:10:31 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: I think that the spec is in better shape than last week.
19:11:26 [hsolbrig]
pfps: I think it is now above the "frost heave in the road for working draft"
19:12:04 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: once text is deleted, eric will press the button and we'll see what happens
19:12:29 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: we will try to advertise as much as possible for comments.
19:13:49 [pfps]
It's worth opening 119 (although it may not end up having any effect on the spec)
19:14:54 [Arnaud]
issue-119
19:14:54 [trackbot]
issue-119 -- Defining constraints on (values of) rdf:Lists -- raised
19:14:54 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/119
19:15:08 [aryman]
@ericP go ahead and push the ECHIDNA button
19:16:06 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: Propose we open issue 119 and wait until simon is back to discuss
19:16:34 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-119
19:16:45 [hknublau]
+1
19:16:47 [hsolbrig]
+1
19:16:51 [Dimitris]
+1
19:16:54 [Labra]
+1
19:16:55 [TallTed]
+1
19:16:55 [pfps]
+1
19:16:57 [aryman]
+1
19:16:58 [kcoyle]
+1
19:17:15 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-119
19:17:26 [Arnaud]
issue-120
19:17:26 [trackbot]
issue-120 -- The spec must be more precise and consist about when a resource is a shape, a class, and an instance of a class -- raised
19:17:26 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/120
19:17:48 [pfps]
also fine to open
19:18:15 [hsolbrig]
aryman: This arose out of issue 23, how do you decide whether a resource is a class, shape or instance of a class.
19:18:54 [hsolbrig]
aryman: We need to be precise about what we are looking for and in which graph.
19:19:30 [ericP]
aryman, ack -- https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160128/ published
19:19:41 [hsolbrig]
aryman: is this something that the editors can resolve?
19:19:47 [ericP]
(ARG, should really be http:)
19:20:03 [ericP]
(i'll see if we can fix those URLs in the notification email)
19:20:31 [hsolbrig]
aryman: In general we're looking in the data graph, except issue 23, then we're looking in shapes. If no objections, the default is the data graph except shapes graph on issue 23...
19:20:37 [pfps]
q+
19:20:46 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:22:06 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: Propose that we let the editors take a pass and then check for agreement and raise specific issues if disagreement.
19:22:25 [pfps]
fine by me to have the spec edited and then see whether the new version is acceptable
19:22:55 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-120 as editorial, once doc is updated specific issues may be raised
19:23:03 [pfps]
+1
19:23:04 [hknublau]
+1
19:23:06 [hsolbrig]
+1
19:23:07 [Labra]
+1
19:23:08 [aryman]
+1
19:23:08 [Dimitris]
+1
19:23:10 [kcoyle]
+1
19:23:22 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-120 as editorial, once doc is updated specific issues may be raised
19:23:46 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: next item is test suite.
19:24:11 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: what is the status, where do we stand, what needs to be done?
19:24:16 [pfps]
q+
19:24:20 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:24:41 [hsolbrig]
pfps: Test harness was somewhat broken, may be fixed...
19:24:53 [hsolbrig]
pfps: ... stupid java logging problems ...
19:25:09 [hsolbrig]
pfps: ... can't push into repository ...
19:25:23 [hsolbrig]
pfps: ... no process for approving tests.
19:26:25 [hsolbrig]
ericp: need pfps github login in order to enable push
19:26:38 [hsolbrig]
ericp: need logins of everyone that wants to push
19:27:10 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: proces -- didn't we agree on free-for-all for the time being?
19:27:39 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: followed by batch approval and then a more formal process.
19:27:52 [hsolbrig]
pfps: Issue if a lot of the tests fail in existing implementation
19:28:28 [ericP]
q+
19:28:35 [hsolbrig]
pfps: If you have a test that fails in current implementation, someone should be notified and there should be followup - either fix test or implementation
19:29:35 [hsolbrig]
pfps: Difficult to figure out what is going on if I download and get a whole bunch of failures...
19:29:52 [hsolbrig]
pfps: ... don't know where the problem lies.
19:29:58 [ericP]
q+ to add traits to mark controversial behaviors
19:30:32 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
19:30:32 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to add traits to mark controversial behaviors
19:30:38 [hsolbrig]
pfps: If someone proposes a test and it fails, it should trigger alarm bells so it can be resolved.
19:31:44 [hsolbrig]
ericp: ShEx tests are peppered with lots of "traits" (sht:trait). Intent is to help with implementation reports...
19:32:20 [hsolbrig]
ericp: ... a way to get a handle on what they should be testing.
19:32:48 [hsolbrig]
ericp: ... an annotation that will aid with the issue you are dealing with.
19:33:58 [hsolbrig]
ericP: Wiki to record annotation types, actual annotation into test itself.
19:34:38 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: If there are questions, should we use github issues?
19:34:54 [hsolbrig]
pfps: Issues are completely open and any random person can file.
19:35:47 [hsolbrig]
ericP: How big an issue is the riff-raff writing issues?
19:38:01 [hsolbrig]
ericP: When we go from free-for-all to controlled, do we want github to enforce that?
19:38:31 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: I don't we need that level of formality.
19:40:01 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: ericP will put together the wiki page.
19:40:55 [hsolbrig]
pfps: trying to find some way to run SHACL when someone pushes a test. Have to set up a server to do this -- some people use AWS, but don't know how to do that. Someone would need a world accessible machine...
19:41:16 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: Could W3C do this?
19:41:57 [hsolbrig]
ericP: Systems team is gun-shy about acquiring services...
19:42:56 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: looks like we'll have to do without this for time being.
19:45:59 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: close test suite item.
19:46:13 [hsolbrig]
issue-23
19:46:13 [trackbot]
issue-23 -- Shapes as classes -- open
19:46:13 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/23
19:46:37 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: can we close 23 and adopt the text that is in the spec now?
19:48:51 [hsolbrig]
pfps: While I still find this repugnant, it has reached the epsilon acceptability level...
19:49:13 [aryman]
aryman has joined #shapes
19:49:18 [aryman]
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#definition-of-implicit-scopeClass
19:49:44 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: ISSUE-23, adopting the proposed text in the spec, regarding the "inferencing" of the scopeClass triple when it points to itself
19:49:46 [aryman]
q+
19:50:22 [Arnaud]
ack aryman
19:50:37 [hsolbrig]
aryman: I believe that the current definition is precise. We can improve on wordsmithing later...
19:50:48 [hsolbrig]
aryman: ... does not say inferencing anywhere
19:51:08 [pfps]
PROPOSED: In the case where a shape is also a class, a SHACL processor MUST include all the instances of the class in the scope of the shape, exactly as if an explicit sh:scopeClass triple was present. An explicit sh:scopeClass triple is not required but MAY be included for clarity.
19:51:18 [hsolbrig]
aryman: .. and (I believe) makes Holgar happy because it doesn't require an explicit scopeClass
19:52:03 [hknublau]
+1
19:52:22 [hknublau]
(and add Close ISSUE-23 to it)
19:53:06 [pfps]
that's what "exactly" is exactly for :-)
19:53:27 [hsolbrig]
ericP: So this is two ways to do the same thing -- hide it in a type arc or have an explicit scopeClass triple?
19:54:20 [TallTed]
+1
19:54:26 [kcoyle]
+0
19:54:27 [Dimitris]
0-
19:54:31 [pfps]
-0.5 (which is not an objection)
19:55:33 [Dimitris]
it is more confusing for the users than the implementers
19:55:36 [hsolbrig]
ericP: makes it more difficult for consumers, people who are inspecting schemas "What are the shapes that this must conform to?" More that they have to look for... not just scopeClass
19:55:52 [pfps]
If I am looking at a shape graph, then to find out scopes for a shape, I need to look for both sh:scopeClass triples and also whether the shape is a class
19:56:02 [aryman_]
aryman_ has joined #shapes
19:56:09 [ericP]
-0.9
19:56:12 [aryman_]
+1
19:56:20 [hsolbrig]
0
19:56:33 [Labra]
-0.5
19:56:53 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: In the case where a shape is also a class, a SHACL processor MUST include all the instances of the class in the scope of the shape, exactly as if an explicit sh:scopeClass triple was present. An explicit sh:scopeClass triple is not required but MAY be included for clarity.
19:56:59 [hknublau]
YAY! After one year, we have closed ISSUE-23
19:57:56 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23, based on resolution regarding ShapeClass (dropped) and implicit scopeClass
19:58:04 [aryman_]
+1
19:58:06 [TallTed]
+1
19:58:16 [hsolbrig]
+1
19:58:21 [pfps]
0
19:58:26 [Dimitris]
0
19:58:27 [kcoyle]
0
19:58:34 [Labra]
0
19:58:42 [hknublau]
+1
19:59:01 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-23, based on resolution regarding ShapeClass (dropped) and implicit scopeClass
19:59:08 [ericP]
0
19:59:30 [hsolbrig]
issue-118
19:59:30 [trackbot]
issue-118 -- syntax errors should not be confusable with validation results -- open
19:59:30 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/118
19:59:59 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: Dimitris pointed out that this was issue 75
20:00:27 [aryman_]
q+
20:00:31 [Arnaud]
ack aryman_
20:00:35 [hsolbrig]
arnaud: Is there anything we need to do or can we just close 118 because we have all the resolutions we need?
20:00:35 [pfps]
q+
20:00:57 [hsolbrig]
aryman: if you want to valide a shapes graph, you validate shapes for shapes...
20:01:34 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
20:01:37 [hsolbrig]
aryman: ... what do you do if you are given an invalid shapes graph on input? Do you need to validate the graph every time? If it does, it should report bad shapes input as errors, not violations.
20:02:32 [hsolbrig]
pfps: Suppose I give an implementation 2 graphs -- a shapes and a data. I should be confident that "validation violoation" comes out of data graph.
20:03:21 [hsolbrig]
pfps: missing file, bad RDF, SHACL processer flaw should be "something else"
20:03:42 [hsolbrig]
pfps: issue 75 is, suppose in the processing validator does divide by 0. What happens then?
20:03:46 [aryman_]
q+
20:04:08 [hsolbrig]
pfps: sh:Violation should ONLY be because of a validation problem, not something else.
20:04:08 [Arnaud]
ack aryman_
20:04:35 [ericP]
error: TK4 extinction
20:05:12 [ericP]
(a proposal for the error reported when the data center gets hit by an astroid)
20:05:16 [aryman_]
q+
20:06:01 [Arnaud]
ack aryman_
20:06:34 [hsolbrig]
aryman: Wasn't issue 75 closed? Didn't we agree that the spec will only cover validation results?
20:07:12 [hknublau]
q+
20:07:14 [pfps]
If the method of reporting shape syntax errors is not specified, then implementations are free to reporting them via SHACL violations
20:07:23 [ericP]
s/TK4/KT4/
20:07:44 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
20:08:12 [aryman_]
@pfps disagree, the violation report is specified to only contain data violates
20:08:23 [aryman_]
s/violates/violations/
20:08:39 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: issue may have arisen because my system added the shapes graph to the data graph, but this wasn't intended.
20:09:32 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-118, validation results are the product of validation of the data graph only
20:09:57 [hsolbrig]
aryman: I agree with 118 and if spec isn't clear, we need to clarify it.
20:10:03 [aryman_]
+1
20:10:04 [hsolbrig]
+1
20:10:13 [TallTed]
+1
20:10:26 [pfps]
I believe that the spec does not currently require that violation results are only from shape violations against the data graph, so I think that something should be added to the spec
20:10:28 [pfps]
+1
20:10:30 [hknublau]
+1
20:10:32 [ericP]
+1
20:10:36 [Dimitris]
+1
20:10:37 [Labra]
+1
20:10:47 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-118, validation results are the product of validation of the data graph only
20:11:21 [pfps]
there is no need to hold up WD publication for this
20:11:29 [hsolbrig]
issue-95
20:11:29 [trackbot]
issue-95 -- Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism -- open
20:11:29 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/95
20:11:55 [hknublau]
q+
20:12:11 [TallTed]
a clever SHACL validation engine might have a built in (or optional) "pre process" to validate a submitted shape graph against the shape shape before validating a submitted data graph against the submitted shape graph...
20:12:15 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
20:12:58 [pfps]
isn't most of the recent discussion with title ISSUE-95 not about the issue at all?
20:13:09 [aryman_]
q+
20:13:13 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: we haven't yet enough substance and precision to talk about it, so it hasn't happened yet. We need another couple of weeks
20:13:30 [Arnaud]
ack aryman_
20:14:32 [hsolbrig]
aryman: document properly, then additional issue is extensions, templates and abstractions, etc.
20:14:49 [hsolbrig]
aryman: I have a wiki page and if folks want input on metamodel, put on this page.
20:15:25 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: the current turtle file has left out all the controversial bits. Can I create another branch that has additional stuff?
20:15:46 [hsolbrig]
aryman: no branches, just addl turtle file.
20:16:08 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: rdfs:domain statements may be different in different branches.
20:17:00 [hsolbrig]
hnkublau: extension owl:imports non-controversial base file
20:17:31 [Arnaud]
issue-117
20:17:31 [trackbot]
issue-117 -- sh:class should not require that its objects be known to be instances of rdfs:Class -- open
20:17:31 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/117
20:17:57 [pfps]
q+
20:18:02 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
20:18:48 [hsolbrig]
pfps: Agree with aryman that some implementations may want to report warnings if they see things that may be unusual. Not an error or constraint violation, however...
20:19:42 [hknublau]
q+
20:19:47 [aryman_]
q+
20:19:49 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
20:20:46 [hsolbrig]
hknublau: The purpose of the requirement fo sh:class being rdfs:Class is to help user interfaces. A compromise would be to switch severity of constraint to a warning...
20:20:51 [pfps]
Currently the spec says "The values of sh:class must be classes (instances of rdfs:Class)."
20:21:17 [pfps]
As well "The values of sh:directType must be classes (instances of rdfs:Class)."
20:21:25 [pfps]
q+
20:21:30 [Arnaud]
ack aryman_
20:21:36 [ericP]
q+ to say this seem slike an RDFS lint
20:22:29 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
20:22:40 [hsolbrig]
aryman: Holger's propsal seems find. @pfps - in what circumstance would you not be able to tell when the object is a class?
20:23:27 [hsolbrig]
pfps: I don't see any reason whatsoever that the thing after sh:class must be SHACL specified to be a class. You might be doing skos or owl, with no triple that ways it is an isntance of a class
20:24:26 [aryman_]
q+
20:24:29 [hsolbrig]
pfps: there is not need to require that the rdfs:Class triple exist anywhere, why do it? You might want to grumble if you can't find it but you can't barf.
20:24:36 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
20:24:36 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say this seem slike an RDFS lint
20:26:42 [hsolbrig]
ericP: Isn't this a schema lint operation? It seems like something you would really want in an RDFS validation. Could be useful, but more like an ontological constraint than a shape constraint...
20:26:43 [Arnaud]
ack aryman_
20:27:32 [hsolbrig]
aryman: When we validate the shapes graph, it is unlikely we will know who is a class.
20:28:05 [hsolbrig]
aryman: We'll have the instance information, but ontology information would be unlikely. Propose that we downgrade to informational message.
20:28:44 [hsolbrig]
q+
20:29:05 [Arnaud]
ack hsolbrig
20:29:51 [ericP]
hsolbrig: we had earlier discussion about the difference between what had to be true for validation to occur vs. well-behaved data graphs that we couldn't enforce
20:30:10 [ericP]
... if there's no significant impact on the shape interpretation, why do we bother?
20:30:34 [aryman_]
I agree that we should weaken the requirement that the object of sh:class is a rdfs:Class
20:30:58 [pfps]
it's on the hour in Newfoundland :-)
20:31:20 [ericP]
quarter hour in nepal
20:31:28 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
20:31:28 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
20:31:28 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, TallTed, hknublau, aryman, hsolbrig, Dimitris, ericP, labra
20:31:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:31:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:31:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
20:31:37 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items