IRC log of shapes on 2016-05-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:54:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
17:54:56 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:54:58 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
17:54:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
17:55:00 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
17:55:00 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:55:01 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
17:55:01 [trackbot]
Date: 05 May 2016
17:58:01 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
17:58:19 [Arnaud]
17:58:22 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
17:58:39 [Arnaud]
17:59:35 [kcoyle]
kcoyle has joined #shapes
18:05:00 [Arnaud]
regrets: labra, ericP
18:06:19 [marqh]
marqh has joined #shapes
18:08:10 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
18:08:15 [mib_e9s4ey]
mib_e9s4ey has joined #shapes
18:08:48 [jamsden]
jamsden has joined #shapes
18:09:16 [hknublau]
18:09:40 [Dimitris]
18:09:56 [Dimitris]
scribenick: dimitris
18:12:01 [pfps]
pfps has joined #shapes
18:12:45 [kcoyle]
18:12:48 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 28 April 2016 Telecon:
18:12:49 [pfps]
18:12:50 [Dimitris]
arnaud: let's start, propose to approve minutes from last week
18:12:51 [TallTed]
18:13:07 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 28 April 2016 Telecon:
18:13:07 [marqh]
18:14:12 [Arnaud]
18:14:35 [pfps]
18:14:35 [trackbot]
ISSUE-158 -- ill-typed literals do not always trigger a validation result -- raised
18:14:35 [trackbot]
18:14:35 [Arnaud]
18:14:35 [trackbot]
issue-158 -- ill-typed literals do not always trigger a validation result -- raised
18:14:35 [trackbot]
18:15:07 [TallTed]
18:15:10 [Dimitris]
18:15:13 [pfps]
fine by me to open 158
18:15:15 [hknublau]
18:15:16 [kcoyle]
18:15:28 [pfps]
18:15:46 [Arnaud]
18:16:04 [Arnaud]
18:16:04 [trackbot]
issue-123 -- Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? -- open
18:16:04 [trackbot]
18:16:18 [jamsden]
jamsden has joined #shapes
18:16:33 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-123, dropping sh:directType
18:16:43 [Dimitris]
arnaud: we talked about this, it seems there is consensus to drop sh:directType
18:16:43 [hknublau]
18:16:46 [pfps]
18:16:46 [jamsden]
18:16:48 [Dimitris]
18:16:54 [marqh]
18:17:11 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-123, dropping sh:directType
18:17:23 [Arnaud]
18:17:23 [trackbot]
issue-135 -- Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? -- open
18:17:23 [trackbot]
18:17:56 [pfps]
there have been several emails
18:18:08 [hknublau]
18:18:09 [Dimitris]
arnaud: we talked about issue 135, people liked the idea for simplification and Holger sent an email with a proposal
18:18:14 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:19:13 [Dimitris]
hknublau: i noticed I made a mistake with the original proposal, I was propagating property constraints, the solution is simpler without changes but I am not ready for a complete proposal
18:19:14 [pfps]
18:19:26 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:20:05 [Arnaud]
18:20:08 [Dimitris]
pfps: there is an nice proposal from Eric, if extended properly it could be a good candidate
18:21:04 [Dimitris]
arnaud: ericP is not here and cannot answer questions, maybe best is to give WG another week
18:23:27 [kcoyle]
second set of comments from
18:23:31 [kcoyle]
18:24:19 [Dimitris]
arnaud: there were some comments on the editors draft from Thomas Baker and we need to decide how to responde to these comments
18:25:41 [Dimitris]
.. his seems quite knowledgable and his comments are very interesting
18:26:12 [Dimitris]
... some comments validate what we hear from Peter
18:26:29 [pfps]
18:26:50 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:27:46 [Dimitris]
pfps: he is confused about terminology, the interaction between shacl and rdfs and validation
18:27:46 [hknublau]
18:28:26 [Dimitris]
... what I do not understand in his comments is the OWA in the shapes graph
18:29:37 [TallTed]
18:29:55 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
18:29:56 [Dimitris]
... OWA and CWA have to do with logics but we need to make it clear so people not get confused
18:30:56 [Dimitris]
hknublau: we closed many of these points no need to reopen them again but there is editorial work to be done
18:31:23 [Dimitris]
... I am also open to find suitable terms, I am open to renaming
18:31:26 [pfps]
I don't think that there is anything in Tom's comments that are not editorial. He is not asking for any changes in SHACL, or at least that is my interpretation of his comments.
18:31:41 [pfps]
18:32:33 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
18:32:34 [Dimitris]
arnaud: he is trying to get on board with what we are thiunking but it not very clear
18:33:36 [Dimitris]
tallted: 1) an editor's draft is not supposed to be consumed from people outside the group, they can look at the next public draft
18:34:49 [Dimitris]
... 2) reg OWA / CWA they do not apply in what we are doing
18:35:27 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:35:29 [Dimitris]
arnaud: what we could do is go through thoma's list
18:36:18 [Dimitris]
pfps: I think people looking at editor's draft are more to be treasured than those looking at the public draft
18:36:52 [jamsden]
18:37:18 [Arnaud]
ack jamsden
18:37:34 [Dimitris]
arnaud: we haven't published in several months and we are due on that
18:38:04 [Dimitris]
jamsden: let's treat his review like a review from a WG member
18:38:52 [Arnaud]
18:39:17 [pfps]
18:39:28 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:39:32 [Dimitris]
arnaud: the first two points can set the expectations for the reader
18:40:09 [jamsden]
18:40:43 [Dimitris]
pfps: constraint has many meanings, Karen also had problems with the term, we need a better introduction that doesn't include constraint
18:40:53 [jamsden]
its not constraints on the graph, its constraints imposed by and application of or use of the graph for a purpose
18:41:15 [Arnaud]
ack jamsden
18:41:53 [Dimitris]
arnaud: we have two levels of constraints, on a high level of constraining an RDF node with a shape and lower level constraints
18:42:00 [kcoyle]
18:42:58 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:43:08 [Dimitris]
jamsden: the word constraint is ok but we do not constrain the graph
18:43:15 [marqh]
18:43:25 [TallTed]
18:43:39 [Dimitris]
kcoyle: we are not constraining we are validating
18:44:05 [Dimitris]
... we also have components which is confusing
18:44:18 [pfps]
18:44:50 [Dimitris]
arnaud: we have different use case and we can also constraint web forms
18:45:00 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
18:45:10 [Dimitris]
kcoyle: validation is most prominent
18:46:43 [Dimitris]
marqh: I want to highlight two words, one is "context and the other is "validate", the term validate is not easy to misinterpret
18:46:48 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
18:47:17 [Dimitris]
tallted: like other w3c specs we are overloading terms
18:48:23 [Dimitris]
... validation and constraint can mean the same or different things
18:48:35 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:48:38 [Dimitris]
... we got to be very clear on the definitions
18:49:29 [Dimitris]
pfps: every word we use has a meaning associated with it, we should try and use words that are as close as possible to what we want to say
18:50:17 [Dimitris]
... we either should be very careful when using the term constraint or avoid it. I agree with Karen, validate covers what we do
18:50:45 [Dimitris]
... why not get away from constraints?
18:51:31 [marqh]
18:51:45 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
18:52:26 [Dimitris]
marqh: point 1 in Tom's email is define constraint upfront
18:53:13 [Dimitris]
... we should also be consistent through out the spec
18:53:56 [pfps]
18:54:02 [Dimitris]
arnaud: let's go to point 2 "If a shape is described in RDF, say so early on"
18:54:12 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
18:55:16 [Dimitris]
pfps: I think there is confusion on the use of rdfs in the shapes graph
18:55:38 [kcoyle]
18:56:09 [Dimitris]
arnaud: is this rdf vs rdfs?
18:57:04 [Dimitris]
pfps: yes, shacl uses only the rdfs terms not the meaning
18:58:23 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
18:59:22 [Dimitris]
kcoyle: where does SHACL fit with W3c technology?
19:00:22 [Dimitris]
arnaud: the problem is with inferencing where we say we do not but sneak some in
19:00:43 [pfps]
but what is RDF? is it RDF graphs? is it the old intuitive meaning of RDF graphs? is the the newer formal meaning of RDF graphs? and then what about RDFS?
19:01:04 [marqh]
19:01:17 [Dimitris]
tallted: classes and subclasses did not originate from RDF, even in biology we have these terms
19:02:21 [Dimitris]
... someone needs to suggest alternative terminology
19:02:49 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
19:03:45 [Dimitris]
marqh: reading section 1.3 can make people worry that something is wrong
19:04:57 [Dimitris]
... are we trying to be too defensive?
19:06:03 [Dimitris]
... can we say it in a slightly different way?
19:07:18 [Dimitris]
tallted: we always need to say there is no reasoning
19:07:38 [Dimitris]
... you have to do all your reasoning before
19:08:15 [kcoyle]
three things: needs an application
19:08:54 [Dimitris]
marqh: I see a confusion on what is (a shapes graph) and what do I do with it
19:09:42 [Dimitris]
... can individuals respond to specific comments?
19:10:23 [Dimitris]
arnaud: I am open, we can certainly to ask for clarifications
19:10:25 [pfps]
19:10:46 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:11:06 [Dimitris]
pfps: that is not going to work
19:11:52 [Dimitris]
... otherwise we have N different people saying N different things
19:12:09 [marqh]
19:12:10 [Dimitris]
... there is a response that I do not completely agree with
19:13:17 [Dimitris]
arnaud: I have a suggestion, it could be ok for people to ask questions but not to give answers
19:13:22 [hknublau]
19:14:01 [hknublau]
19:14:27 [Dimitris]
pfps: email exchange can be very messy and we owe Tom a good response
19:15:01 [Dimitris]
tallted: we can have a WG delegate do it
19:15:36 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
19:17:54 [hknublau]
19:17:59 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:18:16 [Dimitris]
arnaud: point 5 suggests we move the extension mechanism to another document
19:18:56 [Dimitris]
hknublau: this is an opinion of one person
19:19:10 [Dimitris]
... splitting this makes our job much harder
19:19:28 [kcoyle]
19:19:42 [Dimitris]
arnaud: the reason take this seriously is because it validates some comments we had in the WG
19:20:21 [Dimitris]
tallted: we should take this into consideration but it is only one comment
19:20:36 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
19:21:04 [marqh]
19:21:08 [hknublau]
+1 to a primer if there are volunteers
19:21:12 [Dimitris]
kcoyle: is this an indication that a primer could be required as a document
19:21:59 [Dimitris]
arnaud: LDP does something similar
19:22:03 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
19:22:23 [Dimitris]
marqh: +1 for a primer document
19:22:55 [kcoyle]
19:23:15 [Dimitris]
... people who do not want to implement shacl do not need the whole specification
19:23:53 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
19:24:18 [Dimitris]
arnaud: the information is not still stable enough to have a test suite even a primer
19:24:59 [Dimitris]
kcoyle: I can help with the examples
19:25:38 [hknublau]
19:25:42 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
19:25:46 [Dimitris]
arnaud: we need to publish another public version of the draft
19:25:53 [pfps]
19:25:57 [kcoyle]
19:26:27 [Dimitris]
hknublau: I would like a resolution of datatype vs class before the next draft
19:26:39 [Dimitris]
... this would be the final syntax changes
19:26:49 [Dimitris]
... we also have a lot of editorial work
19:26:57 [kcoyle]
19:27:19 [Arnaud]
ack pfps
19:27:50 [Dimitris]
pfps: it would be nice to have an attempt to response to Tom before a public working draft
19:31:15 [Dimitris]
arnaud: we do not have time to answer all his points one by one before publishing the draft
19:31:34 [Dimitris]
... I will send a reply to him explaining this
19:32:46 [hknublau]
@Dimitris, I'll delete sh:directType
19:33:03 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:33:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:33:03 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, hknublau, Dimitris, kcoyle, pfps, TallTed, marqh
19:33:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:33:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
19:33:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:33:12 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items