IRC log of shapes on 2016-06-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:16:32 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
18:16:32 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-irc
18:16:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
18:16:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
18:16:36 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
18:16:36 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
18:16:37 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
18:16:37 [trackbot]
Date: 30 June 2016
18:16:43 [simonstey]
present+
18:16:44 [hsolbrig]
Couldn't hear Dimitris' response
18:17:03 [ericP]
present+
18:17:08 [hsolbrig]
present+
18:17:13 [AndyS]
present+
18:17:13 [Dimitris]
present+
18:17:15 [kcoyle]
present+
18:17:19 [TallTed]
present+
18:17:50 [hsolbrig]
Dimitris: Idea was accomodidate Simon's issue
18:18:14 [hsolbrig]
... remove reverse property constraint and use sh:predicate for forward predicate or list based path
18:18:26 [AndyS]
scribenick: AndyS
18:18:48 [AndyS]
Dimitris: only simple paths e.g. inverse
18:19:29 [AndyS]
EricP: not * and + what about "/"
18:19:58 [AndyS]
Dimitris: it's a list so each element is a path step
18:20:17 [simonstey]
q+
18:20:27 [AndyS]
EricP: SPARQL is all ways to satisfy the path
18:20:45 [simonstey]
-q
18:20:47 [ericP]
ack next
18:20:53 [pfps]
the question is whether there is, in effect, a DISTINCT in the query
18:23:07 [ericP]
PROPOSED: change PropertyConstraint and InversePropertyConstraint to one type of Constraint with either a predicate (which implies arcs-out) or a path. The path does not include * or + and cardinalities on the resulting node value set are satisfied by combination of cardinalities on the steps.
18:24:12 [AndyS]
pfps: This is a new kind of thing - (noises)
18:25:05 [pfps]
is this something new? before all that counted was the number of values, now this appears to be counting paths of course, the two where (roughly) the same before.
18:25:12 [hsolbrig]
q+
18:26:39 [AndyS]
hsolbrig: how does inverse realised in this design?
18:26:50 [Dimitris]
sh:path ( sh:invesre ex:p)
18:26:56 [AndyS]
hsolbrig: how is inverse predicate realised in this design?
18:27:20 [Dimitris]
I do not remember the exact syntax Holger proposed but is similar to the above
18:27:40 [AndyS]
EricP: we have a fixed series of steps inc reverse path
18:27:49 [simonstey]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jun/0134.html
18:29:40 [Dimitris]
sh:path ( ex:p1 [sh:invesre ex:p2] ex:p3)
18:30:16 [AndyS]
SPARQL -- ex:p1/^ex:p2/ex:p3
18:30:54 [ericP]
sh:path ( ex:p1 ex:p2b ex:p3 ) . ex:p2b sh:inverse ex:p2 .
18:31:36 [AndyS]
EricP: In my example - I put in an IRI for the bnode.
18:31:47 [AndyS]
Dimitris: deals to be sorted out
18:32:21 [AndyS]
... can also have nested paths with nested () which are bnodes in the grap.
18:32:29 [AndyS]
EricP: ready to vote?
18:32:55 [Dimitris]
+1
18:33:34 [simonstey]
I made a proposal a year ago https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jul/0070.html (but it's not using lists and is a bit verbose though)
18:33:43 [AndyS]
... this proposal unblocks progress on syntax.
18:34:31 [ericP]
PROPOSED: change PropertyConstraint and InversePropertyConstraint to one type of Constraint with either a predicate (which implies arcs-out) or a path. The path does not include * or + and cardinalities on the resulting node value set are satisfied by combination of cardinalities on the steps. Exact syntax (e.g. nested paths, behavior of bnodes) to be resolved.
18:34:38 [AndyS]
simonstey: pointer in minutes is good.
18:35:04 [simonstey]
+1
18:35:06 [pfps]
0
18:35:08 [Dimitris]
+1
18:35:09 [hsolbrig]
+0
18:35:11 [kcoyle]
0
18:35:14 [jamsden]
+0
18:35:16 [TallTed]
+1
18:35:52 [AndyS]
EricP: advice to editors - tentative support
18:36:09 [ericP]
APPROVED: change PropertyConstraint and InversePropertyConstraint to one type of Constraint with either a predicate (which implies arcs-out) or a path. The path does not include * or + and cardinalities on the resulting node value set are satisfied by combination of cardinalities on the steps. Exact syntax (e.g. nested paths, behavior of bnodes) to be resolved.
18:36:26 [ericP]
ISSUE-52: abstract syntax
18:36:26 [trackbot]
Notes added to ISSUE-52 Define an Abstract Syntax for SHACL.
18:37:27 [AndyS]
EricP: email -- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jun/0159.html on shex/shacl syntax
18:37:55 [AndyS]
... was up to date until the path resolution above
18:38:01 [pfps]
I don't even play Holger on TV
18:38:48 [AndyS]
pfps: Didn't see a need for an abstract syntax.
18:39:07 [jamsden]
q+
18:39:17 [ericP]
ack next
18:39:20 [ericP]
ack next
18:39:51 [AndyS]
jamsden: What is the purpose here?
18:41:00 [AndyS]
EricP: Purpose is to have a terse semantics and relate a shex parse tree to shacl (for the overlap)
18:41:25 [AndyS]
... e.g. SPARQL does abstract syntax to algebra
18:41:53 [AndyS]
... this is a "shapes algebra" equivalent
18:42:18 [AndyS]
jamsden: it creates redundancy in defn terms
18:42:45 [AndyS]
... how does it affect the reSpec?
18:43:11 [AndyS]
EricP: This is not huge. Little or no automation needed.
18:44:01 [AndyS]
... not a machine readable tool
18:44:17 [AndyS]
jamsden: suggest non-normative appendix?
18:44:52 [AndyS]
simonstey: xtext in Eclipse useful? Auto generate parsers from this.
18:45:17 [AndyS]
EricP: Purpose today is to highlight its existence.
18:45:20 [ericP]
topic: ISSUE-139: Universal applicability
18:45:41 [simonstey]
issue-139
18:45:41 [trackbot]
issue-139 -- Can all constraint properties be applied in all scenarios? -- open
18:45:41 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/139
18:47:03 [AndyS]
pfps: worry is that language is complex, many restrictions and rules, so maybe make any constraint anywhere - there has been push back.
18:47:40 [AndyS]
... everything is a constraint.
18:48:26 [AndyS]
... interacts with path
18:49:33 [ericP]
-> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#DisjointConstraintComponent NC, PC, IPC table
18:49:50 [AndyS]
... see table in sec 4 ... quite complicated ... so let anything happen
18:50:51 [AndyS]
... alternative is to remove the SHACL rules in the table and allow all possible uses even if they do not have much usefulness.
18:50:56 [Dimitris]
q+
18:51:19 [AndyS]
"Generalised RDF"
18:54:04 [AndyS]
pfps: in some places e.g. can't have literals in some places in RDF - we are charged to future proof SHACL so may change. And some tripestores allow it.
18:55:55 [Dimitris]
all this are now solved with the new path syntax
18:56:09 [Dimitris]
there is no longer a distinction between PC & IPC
18:56:41 [TallTed]
q+
18:57:05 [AndyS]
pfps: effect of my proposal is to put check marks everywhere.
18:57:23 [AndyS]
Dimitris: only NC and paths now
18:57:26 [ericP]
ack next
18:57:55 [ericP]
ack next
18:57:55 [AndyS]
... table will by modified / removed.
18:58:08 [pfps]
so far, this is not about performance - that's a separate issue
18:58:39 [AndyS]
TallTed: some strictly silliness is useful to check for silly data.
18:58:49 [ericP]
q+ to describe the 3 apparent classes of Property
18:58:51 [ericP]
ack next
18:58:52 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to describe the 3 apparent classes of Property
18:58:54 [AndyS]
... it is a valid validation
19:01:31 [AndyS]
pfps: sounds reasonable
19:02:00 [ericP]
topic: ISSUE-133: syntax
19:02:20 [simonstey]
issue-133
19:02:20 [trackbot]
issue-133 -- syntax simplification and regularization -- open
19:02:20 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/133
19:03:15 [AndyS]
pfps: some of this has already been resolved.
19:04:32 [AndyS]
... ducks example
19:05:55 [AndyS]
... shape or constraint : striped syntax leads to a constraint just to keep two shapes apart.
19:06:21 [AndyS]
... we can have just constraints
19:06:37 [AndyS]
EricP: shex - just triple constraints
19:07:21 [ericP]
I heard that as "ConApe" as in "ConstrationShape"
19:07:33 [ericP]
q?
19:07:42 [AndyS]
pfps: constraint or shape in any place
19:11:51 [pfps]
This is recapping a long discussion of quite some time ago.
19:12:02 [AndyS]
Ptr to email?
19:13:36 [Dimitris]
q+
19:16:11 [ericP]
ack next
19:16:43 [AndyS]
Dimitris: closer to pfps's syntax now - diff is that he works on sets
19:17:02 [AndyS]
... node constraints else quite similar.
19:18:51 [AndyS]
(detailed discussion)
19:20:05 [AndyS]
pfps: things on sets can't be in NCs
19:20:27 [ericP]
topic: ISSUE-150: nested severities
19:21:19 [Dimitris]
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/150
19:21:25 [AndyS]
Dimitris: not intuitive how it would work.
19:21:38 [AndyS]
... link to info or violations
19:22:10 [AndyS]
... an area for discussion to get to a proposal.
19:23:53 [AndyS]
... sh:Warning with sh:Violation and also sh:Info inside
19:26:55 [AndyS]
pfps: issues with composition of shapes
19:27:05 [Dimitris]
q+
19:27:31 [AndyS]
EricP: preprocessing step for nested constraints/violations?
19:28:31 [AndyS]
pfps: handles level at runtime to pass highest priority
19:28:45 [ericP]
ack next
19:28:50 [AndyS]
... separately how do the messages come out?
19:29:39 [AndyS]
Dimitris: I proposed treat everything as an error
19:30:07 [pfps]
my problem with violation levels is that a shape that produces only informational results can't be used inside another shape
19:31:58 [pfps]
Dimitris's proposal would at least change the validation reports that are emitted, so it is not just editorial
19:32:37 [AndyS]
Dimitris: can make proposal for a resolution
19:33:29 [kcoyle]
bye Peter!
19:33:37 [AndyS]
EricP: suggest Dimitris writes consolidated proposal
19:33:44 [Dimitris]
bye Peter!
19:33:46 [pfps]
bye
19:33:49 [AndyS]
Farewell to Peter!
19:33:52 [simonstey]
bye peter
19:34:07 [ericP]
trackbot, end meeting?
19:34:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:34:07 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been simonstey, ericP, hsolbrig, AndyS, Dimitris, kcoyle, TallTed
19:34:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:34:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
19:34:16 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:34:16 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items