18:57:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:57:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/04-shapes-irc
18:57:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:57:23 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #shapes
18:57:24 <pfps> pfps has joined #shapes
18:57:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:57:25 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:57:26 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:57:26 <trackbot> Date: 04 February 2016
18:57:30 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
18:57:36 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.02.04
18:57:47 <pfps> present+
18:57:51 <Arnaud> present+
18:58:34 <simonstey> present+
18:59:49 <Dimitris> present+
19:00:38 <pfps> I see that there have been responses from the WG to questions in the public mailing list.  This should be discussed today.
19:00:50 <aryman> aryman has joined #shapes
19:00:56 <hknublau> hknublau has joined #shapes
19:01:42 <aryman> present+ aryman
19:02:38 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
19:02:49 <hknublau> present+
19:02:56 <ericP> present+
19:04:09 <ericP> topic: Admin
19:03:39 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 28 January 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-shapes-minutes.html
19:03:41 <pfps> minutes looked fine
19:03:47 <aryman> +1
19:03:56 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 28 January 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/28-shapes-minutes.html
19:04:35 <pfps> q+ to talk about the public mailing list at the end of the admin section
19:04:43 <ericP> topic: F2F6
19:04:48 <Labra> Labra has joined #shapes
19:05:12 <ericP> Arnaud: jose and i have conflict end of March
19:05:54 <ericP> ... Doodle indicates March 15-17 is the only candidate
19:06:04 <ericP> ... though several people marked it if-need-be
19:06:19 <ericP> ... we can accept this or look later into April
19:06:20 <pfps> There will be times during 15-17 March when I will have to be in different meetings.  I do not know how many hours this will consume.
19:06:40 <ericP> ... we can aim for another meeting in June
19:07:01 <ericP> ... which leaves the summer off
19:07:53 <kcoyle> march seems fine
19:07:56 <aryman> q+
19:08:02 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:08:02 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about the public mailing list at the end of the admin section
19:08:14 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:08:36 <simonstey> +1 for march 15-17
19:08:39 <ericP> Arnaud: is there a set of issues that require a set of issues to resolve?
19:09:04 <ericP> s/require a set of/require a f2f/
19:09:19 <pfps> recursive shapes??
19:09:29 <ericP> Arnaud: holger asserted that there's one major issue left - issue 23
19:09:42 <ericP> ... having f2f's is not manditory.
19:09:49 <hknublau> I am not keen on F2F meetings unless needed (time zone is killing me).
19:09:54 <ericP> ... f2fs are a way to make more progress
19:10:29 <ericP> aryman: i wonder if instead of a F2F meeting we could have extended meetings with required prep
19:10:43 <ericP> ... it might not interest everyone
19:11:04 <hknublau> +1 to longer regular meetings
19:11:09 <ericP> Arnaud: reserving peoples' time is difficult
19:11:20 <ericP> ... i'm afraid it will drag on
19:11:34 <ericP> ... that said, i'm here to help, not to force people to meet
19:12:28 <ericP> hknublau: my impression is that we have all the open issues behind us
19:12:55 <kcoyle> q+
19:13:27 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:13:45 <ericP> Arnaud: we could say "after the weekly call, i want to discuss X; those interersted please linger"
19:14:13 <ericP> kcoyle: it seems that during the weekly calls, we discuss stuff without completing them
19:15:00 <ericP> Arnaud: apart from the end of the call, in most weekly calls, if we don't resolve something it's because folks need more time
19:15:11 <ericP> ... f2fs don't help much in that regard
19:15:29 <ericP> ... it's more to do with extracting bigger bandwidth for a few days
19:15:47 <ericP> ... i'm hearing several folks propose that we don't schedule a F2F
19:15:58 <aryman> q+
19:16:02 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:16:28 <ericP> aryman: i like the idea of using the regular call to go deeper into specific issues
19:16:32 <simonstey> +30 minutes after the regular call for certain topics seems reasonable
19:16:41 <ericP> ... easier to leverage this time slot than to schedule others
19:17:05 <pfps> fine by me to not schedule the march F2F
19:17:33 <ericP> Arnaud: so do we cancel the next F2F?
19:17:41 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Put F2F6 on hold indefinitely, we'll have ad hoc calls instead
19:17:44 <pfps> +1
19:17:48 <aryman> +1
19:17:49 <simonstey> +1
19:17:55 <ericP> +1
19:17:56 <kcoyle> +1
19:17:56 <hknublau> +1
19:18:04 <Labra> +1
19:18:28 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Put F2F6 on hold indefinitely, we'll have ad hoc calls instead
19:18:43 <Dimitris> +1
19:19:33 <ericP> topic: DC shapes meeting
19:20:36 <Arnaud> http://www.meetup.com/semweb-31/events/228584769/
19:20:53 <ericP> Arnaud: Dave McComb and Dan Carey giving a DC meeting talk "SHACL Up with Shapely RDF" about their implementation
19:21:03 <ericP> ... if they have one, maybe there are others
19:21:08 <aryman> q+
19:21:17 <ericP> hknublau: i saw a discussion on a ruby mailing list
19:21:32 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:21:33 <ericP> Arnaud: we could have a wiki page about impls
19:21:56 <hknublau> https://github.com/ruby-rdf/rdf/issues/268
19:22:02 <ericP> aryman: it would be great if the whole WG attended because apparently he will say exactly what SHACL is ;-)
19:22:21 <ericP> Arnaud: i'll put a section on the homepage for links to impls.
19:22:40 <ericP> ... at CR time, we can reach out to those folks
19:23:05 <ericP> topic: Handling of comments sent to the public mailing list
19:23:39 <ericP> pfps: we've flub everything respect to comments and we're continuing
19:24:08 <ericP> ... if you're going to reply to a q on the public mailing list, even trivial, you should tell the WG what you're going to do
19:24:18 <ericP> Arnaud: i don't know that W3C has a policy
19:25:37 <ericP> ericP: i think in SPARQL, we could answer non-controversial q's
19:25:59 <ericP> ... i don't think anyone asked non-controversial q's on the RDF public list
19:27:00 <ericP> Arnaud: i propose a policy where you speak for yourself. if you know the answer, go ahead and help
19:27:07 <pfps> q+
19:27:23 <ericP> ... if the issue is controversial, answer with care and/or bring to the WG for discussion
19:27:32 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:28:03 <ericP> pfps: though this mesage appears to not be substantive, it is
19:28:12 <ericP> ... robert is owed a WG response
19:28:36 <ericP> ... it's substantive, the first, all the things that indicate that the WG should be responding with care
19:31:13 <ericP> Arnaud: doesn't have to be so rigid. we can follow the list and if we disagree, we can respond with "not discussed yet; follow-up pending"
19:31:32 <aryman> q+
19:31:32 <ericP> pfps: if it works; it works. if not, it can fail very badly
19:31:49 <ericP> ... controversial hides in lots of places
19:31:55 <ericP> q+
19:32:35 <ericP> pfps: the public-rdf-shapes list is the way for the public to address the WG
19:33:05 <ericP> ... when we go to the end, we need to go through a very formal process
19:33:22 <ericP> Arnaud: pfps is referring to "disposition of comments"
19:33:47 <ericP> ... we used to have a phase called "last call" where folks have to say whether the commenter was satisfied with the response to their comment
19:33:57 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:34:03 <ericP> ... it's a way to make sure that W3C hasn't closed itself from the rest of the world
19:34:48 <Arnaud> ack ericP
19:34:53 <ericP> aryman: i saw that note and no one replied for three days, and since it was about an edit i'd just made, ithoguht i was qualified to respond
19:35:54 <kcoyle> q+
19:37:29 <ericP> ericP: in RDF and SPARQL, I'd negotiate a wording change (or none) and when the commenter was satisfied, take it to the WG
19:37:38 <Arnaud> ack kcoyle
19:37:45 <ericP> Arnaud: i think pfps's issue is in the case where there is no change
19:38:07 <ericP> kcoyle: if we want to get comments, we have to respond or folks will get discouraged
19:38:27 <ericP> ... we need someone to at least say that we've seen the comment and that we're thinking about it
19:38:45 <ericP> Arnaud: from that point of view, i was happy to see that aryman responded
19:39:13 <ericP> kcoyle: but within ourselves, we haven't agreed on a mechanism for responding to comments
19:39:37 <kcoyle> I nominate Arthur for that
19:39:42 <ericP> Arnaud: does anyone want to volunteer to respond?
19:40:07 <pfps> I'm happy to provide acks as necessary.
19:40:07 <aryman> @kcoyle what have I done to offend you?
19:40:10 <simonstey> which again will cost us some precious wg time
19:40:55 <ericP> ... if you think it's controversial, you can say "good question; i've raised an issue"
19:41:35 <ericP> ... i think 99% of the cases will be fine
19:41:54 <ericP> ... of course anyone can respond if they see an email sitting there
19:42:07 <ericP> pfps: i'll wait for the next train to jump off the tracks
19:42:37 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-117: non-classes as classes
19:42:59 <ericP> Arnaud: we might have resolved 117 given more time -- resuming conversation
19:43:10 <hknublau> q+
19:43:30 <ericP> ... there was an issue with how the spec says that the object sh:class MUST be classes
19:43:40 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:43:52 <ericP> ... propose to make this MUST a SHOULD
19:44:12 <ericP> hknublau: we should lift the requirement that has sh:property
19:44:28 <pfps> Holger appears to be arguing against SHOULD
19:45:06 <ericP> ... the cases where the range is supposed to be an rdfs:Class or an rdfs:Property shoule be turned into a warning
19:45:10 <hknublau> no, should is good
19:45:42 <ericP> Arnaud: just saying "SHOULD" doesn't say how implementors admonish users
19:46:12 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-117, changing MUST to SHOULD in: Section 3.1.1  sh:class "The values of sh:class must be classes (instances of  rdfs:Class)." and changing MUST to SHOULD where we say that sh:property must be rdfs:property
19:46:17 <pfps> q+
19:46:21 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:46:31 <ericP> pfps: i think that's too strong
19:46:50 <aryman> s/sh:property/sh:predicate/
19:47:12 <aryman> s/rdfs:property/rdf:Property/
19:48:11 <simonstey> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#template-arguments
19:49:50 <aryman> neither the shapes graph nor the data graph may have a triple like ex:loves a rdf:Property
19:50:04 <aryman> q+
19:50:38 <aryman> say "is expected to be" or "is normally"
19:51:06 <aryman> q+
19:51:40 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:52:21 <ericP> aryman: i think that pfps is that there's really no requirement that a validator GET the ontology or that a data graph contain the ontology
19:52:25 <hknublau> q+
19:52:26 <pfps> there is no need for an ontology in SHACL validation
19:52:28 <ericP> ... SHOULD is misleading
19:52:39 <ericP> ... we're not doing inferencing
19:52:47 <TallTed> { :John :Mary :loves } ?
19:52:58 <ericP> ... i think we should SHOULDn't say "should"
19:53:20 <simonstey> is assumed to be a property?
19:53:36 <Arnaud> ack hknublau
19:53:47 <ericP> ... we could say "the object of the sh:property is typically a property"
19:53:53 <ericP> hknublau: i can live with that
19:54:08 <pfps> q+
19:54:12 <Arnaud> ack pfps
19:54:15 <ericP> ... all we need is an RDFS range on sh:property to know that the object is a property
19:54:34 <ericP> pfps: hknublau is talking about a particular use of SHACL
19:55:09 <ericP> ... there are others, e.g. describing the output of web processes, which don't expect anything about rdf:Properties
19:55:30 <ericP> Arnaud: if we can't agree, we can remove it altogether
19:55:31 <aryman> q+
19:55:38 <Arnaud> ack aryman
19:55:42 <ericP> hknublau: so what about the range statement?
19:55:59 <ericP> aryman: this is near the vocab discussion around issue-95
19:56:15 <ericP> ... we're discussing what sh:Class or sh:predicate means
19:56:43 <ericP> ... it's appropriate for us to add a range to say that the object of sh:predicate is a property
19:57:00 <ericP> ... unless we were expecting a reasoner to do something with it, it has no impact
19:57:13 <ericP> ... we're free to put that sort of information in the vocabulary
19:57:37 <ericP> Arnaud: we have a section on the relationship between SHACL and RDFS
19:57:45 <ericP> ... can we add a bit of text here?
19:57:58 <ericP> aryman: we've already said that we don't rely on a reasoner
19:58:26 <ericP> ... so whatever we put in the vocabulary will have no effect
19:58:52 <ericP> ... the whole point of issue-23 was to figure out what reasoning we do
19:59:01 <ericP> ... we count on 0 inferencing
20:00:38 <simonstey> +1 to rdfs:range
20:02:07 <ericP> pfps: literals and blank nodes can be properties
20:02:16 <ericP> ... nothing prevents them from being properties
20:02:33 <ericP> hknublau: let's not get into philosophy
20:02:52 <ericP> pfps: if you declare it, you're making a strong statement about the future
20:02:57 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-117, dropping from Section 3.1.1  sh:class the sentence "The values of sh:class must be classes (instances of  rdfs:Class)." and any assertions that sh:predicate must be an rdfs:Property
20:03:14 <ericP> aryman: there's benefit either way
20:03:34 <ericP> hknublau: with TBC, we'll add triples
20:03:53 <pfps> close enough
20:03:59 <aryman> +1
20:04:07 <hknublau> +1
20:04:09 <simonstey> +1
20:04:09 <ericP> +1
20:04:10 <Dimitris> +1
20:04:13 <Labra> +1
20:04:14 <TallTed> +0.5
20:04:14 <pfps> +1
20:04:16 <kcoyle> +1
20:04:30 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-117, dropping from Section 3.1.1  sh:class the sentence "The values of sh:class must be classes (instances of  rdfs:Class)." and any assertions that sh:predicate must be an rdfs:Property
20:05:03 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications
20:05:28 <ericP> Arnaud: hknublau raised an issue about how we manage the vocab and turtle files
20:05:56 <ericP> hknublau: as i was editing the turtle files -- up to six files:
20:06:33 <ericP> ... .. RDFS vocab distinct from shapes files
20:07:11 <ericP> ... .. shapes which constriant for SHACL-based tools how these shapes can be composed
20:07:21 <ericP> ... .. extension mechanism
20:07:33 <ericP> ... .. SPARQL-related extension
20:08:03 <aryman> q+
20:08:05 <ericP> Arnaud: i don't think we want to overshoot.
20:08:08 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:08:22 <ericP> aryman: i did reply:
20:08:36 <ericP> ... any term in our vocab should be in a vocab file
20:08:48 <ericP> ... for constraints, we have built-in constraints and we have extensions
20:10:35 <ericP> ... we could still stick the sparql defns in another file, importing the basing turtle file
20:10:43 <ericP> ... shapes go into a separate file
20:11:42 <ericP> ... all i'm suggesting is that the sparql implementations go in a separate file as they're not normative; just an example implementation
20:11:56 <ericP> hknublau, i'd want to implement them in SHACL
20:12:04 <ericP> hknublau: i'd want to implement them in SHACL
20:12:22 <ericP> ... people who are using shacl typically need to owl:import soemthing
20:12:37 <ericP> ... if every implementiaton has their own SPARQL queries, that's not going to be helpful
20:12:44 <ericP> ... i think this requires digging into the details
20:13:27 <ericP> Arnaud: i'd like the two editors to come up with some options for us to choose from
20:13:27 <aryman> q+
20:13:50 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:13:58 <ericP> hknublau: three files is complicated but not so bad
20:14:14 <ericP> aryman: we have a normative core vocab
20:14:28 <ericP> ... we have another vocab file which inlcludes SPARQL defns
20:14:49 <ericP> ... if TQ wants to improve upon them, they can import the core vocab
20:15:27 <ericP> Arnaud: if there are points of contention (between hknublau and aryman), bring them to the group for resolution
20:15:43 <ericP> ... otherwise, on the issue, i understand you're working out the details of holding a meeting
20:16:09 <ericP> topic: ISSUE-92: additive repeated properties
20:16:20 <ericP> Arnaud: i believe this is the most important issue left so we need to make progress on this
20:16:36 <ericP> q+
20:16:59 <ericP> Arnaud: this is important to the shex folks
20:17:11 <Arnaud> ack ericP
20:17:14 <ericP> ... we need to discuss how we address this
20:18:50 <Arnaud> ericP: ShEx has experimented with aryman's proposed greedy algorithm and that meets our most important needs
20:19:07 <Arnaud> ... this could be extended later to something more exhaustive
20:19:44 <ericP> Arnaud: so you've experimented with aryman's greedy algorithm and you're satisfied with it?
20:19:52 <aryman> q+
20:19:55 <ericP> ericP: yes, we can extend in the future if needed
20:19:58 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:20:15 <ericP> Arnaud: what do we need to do to make progress?
20:20:42 <ericP> aryman: we just need other impls, like hknublau's
20:20:59 <aryman> q+
20:21:09 <ericP> hknublau: i'm ok with this
20:21:09 <pfps> q+
20:21:25 <ericP> ... we just need a precise definition
20:21:49 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:22:03 <ericP> Arnaud: it seems this is more pallatible to most people
20:22:12 <ericP> aryman: i can give this a precise definiton
20:22:28 <ericP> .. you can think of this as a generalized definition of QCRs.
20:22:57 <Arnaud> ack pfps
20:22:59 <ericP> Arnaud: if you can draft the section in the spec, that'd be great
20:23:23 <ericP> pfps: the syntax appears to be rather byzantine
20:23:49 <ericP> ... it probably indicates that our syntax needs refactoring in any case
20:24:05 <ericP> ... it would be ugly if we address this without a general syntax fefactoring
20:24:41 <ericP> ... now aryman's issue @@ may entail refactoring
20:24:47 <aryman> q+
20:25:16 <ericP> ... it would be silly to hide QCRs inside partition just because they're available in partition
20:25:57 <ericP> ... adding it to our already baroque syntax makes this too expensive
20:26:09 <ericP> ... it would be nice to see a worked out proposal
20:26:38 <ericP> ... folks will have to implement this; it would be nice to make it easier
20:26:52 <Arnaud> ack aryman
20:27:12 <ericP> Arnaud: if we can get a draft from aryman, we can take that as the first step
20:27:33 <ericP> pfps: this doesn't appear to add expressive power
20:27:55 <hknublau> I think we should drop QCRs if we have partitions. Too redundant, and QCRs are not all that common IMHO.
20:28:43 <ericP> ... i.e. subsequent conjoints need a conjunction and a negation
20:29:09 <ericP> aryman: i think the QCRs complicated the vocab
20:29:22 <pfps> It appears to me that (partition (qcc min1 max1 r1) ... (qcc minn maxn rn)) is the same as
20:29:27 <ericP> ... partition allows us to just include min/max/constraint
20:29:44 <ericP> ... we don't have to introduce new vocab terms for the same concepts
20:29:49 <pfps> (and (qcc min1 max1 r1) ... (qcc minn maxn (and (not r1) ... (not rn-1) rn))
20:31:03 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
20:31:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
20:31:03 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pfps, Arnaud, simonstey, Dimitris, aryman, hknublau, ericP, labra, TallTed, kcoyle
20:31:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:31:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/04-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
20:31:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
20:31:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items