IRC log of shapes on 2016-07-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:00:54 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #shapes

18:00:54 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-shapes-irc

18:00:56 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes

18:00:56 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #shapes

18:00:58 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be SHAPES

18:00:58 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot

18:00:59 [trackbot]

Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference

18:00:59 [trackbot]

Date: 07 July 2016

18:01:32 [jamsden]

jamsden has joined #shapes

18:02:22 [Arnaud]

chair: Arnaud

18:02:32 [Arnaud]

agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.07.07

18:03:29 [Arnaud]

present+

18:03:43 [hknublau]

hknublau has joined #shapes

18:03:52 [simonstey]

present+

18:04:13 [AndyS]

present+

18:04:13 [kcoyle]

present+

18:04:20 [jamsden]

present+

18:04:51 [hknublau]

present+

18:05:32 [TallTed]

present+

18:05:39 [pano]

present+

18:08:27 [AndyS]

FYI -- Progress on pre-bind/EXISTS: Peter's summary of problems to look at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-exists/2016Jul/0020.html

18:09:46 [Dimitris]

present+

18:11:15 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 30 June 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html

18:12:11 [hsolbrig]

hsolbrig has joined #shapes

18:12:16 [hsolbrig]

present+ hsolbrig

18:12:21 [hsolbrig]

scribenick hsolbrig

18:12:22 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 30 June 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html

18:13:13 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: Eric - you have an open action.

18:14:16 [hsolbrig]

issue 132

18:14:23 [Arnaud]

issue-132

18:14:23 [trackbot]

issue-132 -- sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available -- open

18:14:23 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/132

18:14:52 [hknublau]

q+

18:14:54 [Dimitris]

q+

18:14:57 [hsolbrig]

ericP: I'm not sure how this goes away...

18:15:07 [Arnaud]

ack hknublau

18:15:14 [Dimitris]

q-

18:16:01 [hsolbrig]

hknublau: the wording was referring to propertyConstraint...

18:16:17 [hsolbrig]

eric: sparql definitions still look at predicate?

18:16:43 [hsolbrig]

hknublau: no there is no predicate anymore, just ask queries.

18:16:52 [hsolbrig]

eric: When was that changed?

18:17:00 [hsolbrig]

hknublau: this week.

18:17:24 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-132 as no longer relevant, sh:predicate is no longer used in the latest editor's draft

18:18:06 [hsolbrig]

hknublau: ?predicate has disappeared except in definition of sh:closed.

18:18:09 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-132 as no longer relevant, ?predicate is no longer used in the latest editor's draft

18:18:16 [hknublau]

+1

18:18:17 [ericP]

+1

18:18:17 [hsolbrig]

+1

18:18:23 [simonstey]

+1

18:18:28 [Dimitris]

+1

18:18:30 [kcoyle]

+1

18:18:30 [TallTed]

+1

18:18:46 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-132 as no longer relevant, ?predicate is no longer used in the latest editor's draft

18:19:01 [hsolbrig]

issue-41

18:19:01 [trackbot]

issue-41 -- Using property paths to refer to values/types? -- open

18:19:01 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/41

18:20:18 [hsolbrig]

ericP: worth noting that support was not overwhelming in discussion.

18:20:50 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: how much more time do we need?

18:21:15 [ericP]

just above <https://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes#resolution04>

18:22:57 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-41, based on previous resolution and latest editor's draft

18:23:03 [simonstey]

+1

18:23:03 [hknublau]

+1

18:23:04 [ericP]

+0

18:23:05 [hsolbrig]

+1

18:23:06 [jamsden]

+1

18:23:12 [Dimitris]

+1

18:23:28 [TallTed]

+1

18:23:31 [kcoyle]

0

18:23:54 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-41, based on previous resolution and latest editor's draft

18:24:07 [simonstey]

issue-65

18:24:07 [trackbot]

issue-65 -- Consistency and cohesiveness of nomenclature (e.g., shapes, scopes, and constraints) -- open

18:24:07 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/65

18:24:39 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: we spent quite a bit of time on the terminology in the document. Spec has been reworked with help from Dimitris and Karen...

18:24:58 [hsolbrig]

... it doesn't prevent anybody from bringing up specifics later on.

18:25:07 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-65, no longer relevant given all the changes made to the draft

18:25:11 [jamsden]

+1

18:25:14 [hknublau]

+1

18:25:14 [Dimitris]

+1

18:25:17 [hsolbrig]

+1

18:25:19 [simonstey]

+1

18:25:23 [TallTed]

+1

18:25:24 [kcoyle]

+1

18:25:32 [ericP]

+1

18:25:42 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-65, no longer relevant given all the changes made to the draft

18:26:00 [hsolbrig]

issue-166

18:26:00 [trackbot]

issue-166 -- separate out advanced part of specification -- open

18:26:00 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/166

18:26:23 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: relates to discussion about how many documents we should have...

18:26:44 [hsolbrig]

... several members proposed split, TopQuadrant was resisting ...

18:26:58 [kcoyle]

q+

18:27:21 [hsolbrig]

... on mailer, external party (Tom Baker) said why not split?

18:27:41 [jamsden]

q+

18:27:43 [Arnaud]

ack kcoyle

18:28:30 [hsolbrig]

kcoyle: Holger's email indicated that there are dependencies, so they aren't entirely separable. Would be better looking at after language were solidified...

18:28:51 [hsolbrig]

... prefer keeping it open and coming back at the end.

18:28:54 [Arnaud]

ack jamsden

18:29:33 [hsolbrig]

jamsden: went through editing work for 7 part OSLC. Multi-parts add editing overhead, but I like decoupling and separation of concerns.

18:30:02 [hsolbrig]

... separation might be useful. Right now benefit might be low compared to cost

18:31:01 [hsolbrig]

AndyS: split that is too much on the expert side. If core and extension mechanisms reflect clear difference...

18:32:14 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: from audience view, makes sense. From editorial perspective, helps identify dependencies so it might be a useful exercise

18:33:06 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: don't hear a push to split, but happy to leave issue open for the time being

18:33:24 [jamsden]

q+

18:33:35 [Arnaud]

ack jamsden

18:34:07 [hsolbrig]

jamsden: disagree. Really good for editors to know what they are working with. Organization is best done up front and then stuck with. Refactor earlier rather than later.

18:34:27 [hsolbrig]

... recommend doing or not doing, but not delaying any longer.

18:35:54 [hsolbrig]

hknublau: technically it is possible. There are references that go across boundaries. html right now comes from style sheet, would loose that ability with multi documents...

18:36:27 [TallTed]

in the split case, the terms section should get replicated ... the headache is making sure that changes to either doc reflect in the other

18:36:40 [hsolbrig]

... SPARQL queries in section 4 have references to advanced sections and include pre-bindings. Had included it, but it led to duplication

18:37:01 [TallTed]

(personally, I see no need for this split.)

18:37:52 [hsolbrig]

Dimitris: agree with Holger. Prefer one document, but if we split it would prefer at the end vs. now

18:38:11 [hknublau]

I think the split would be less relevant if we had a Primer.

18:39:11 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: not certain that Primer will ever happen. Time is short

18:39:19 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-166, keeping the spec as one document

18:39:29 [hknublau]

+1

18:39:36 [jamsden]

+.6

18:39:39 [simonstey]

+0

18:39:40 [Dimitris]

+1

18:39:41 [hsolbrig]

+0

18:39:41 [TallTed]

+1

18:39:42 [kcoyle]

-.5

18:39:42 [AndyS]

+0.5

18:39:49 [ericP]

-.5

18:40:11 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-166, keeping the spec as one document

18:40:29 [hsolbrig]

issue-52

18:40:29 [trackbot]

issue-52 -- Define an Abstract Syntax for SHACL -- open

18:40:29 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/52

18:41:13 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: Eric submitted an abstract syntax for the core, meant to help bridge ShEx/SHACL gaps

18:41:19 [jamsden]

q+

18:41:22 [hsolbrig]

... what do people think?

18:41:31 [Arnaud]

ack jamsden

18:42:32 [hsolbrig]

jamsden: I looked at it and like it. As spec reader it confuses me, as there are multiple syntaxes -- core, ShEx, this and extensibility mechanism.

18:42:50 [hsolbrig]

... don't think it needs to be normative. Is there a non-normative work product that can be published?

18:42:53 [hknublau]

+1

18:43:25 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: Yes - can be published as non-normative.

18:43:56 [hsolbrig]

ericP: Wanted a way to bridge ShEx syntax like SPARQL has a grammar and abstract syntax and semantics against abstract syntax.

18:43:59 [kcoyle]

q+

18:44:44 [hsolbrig]

ericP: a few people found it a quick read to help understand SHACL. Benefits to people who are familiar with abstract syntax...

18:45:14 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: publish on its own -- working group note? Non-normative appendix?

18:45:41 [Arnaud]

ack kcoyle

18:46:09 [hsolbrig]

kcoyle: Does this formalism actually express everything that is in SHACL.

18:46:34 [hsolbrig]

ericp: covered SHACL core except hasShape recursiveness until last week. Path expressions have changed

18:46:51 [jamsden]

q+

18:46:57 [hsolbrig]

kcoyle: Could it be exactly parallel to SHACL core?

18:47:02 [hsolbrig]

EricP: yes

18:47:11 [hsolbrig]

kcoyle: Extension mechanism?

18:47:52 [hsolbrig]

EricP: more complicated. Core is not that complex -- fairly simple rule-based process...

18:48:24 [hsolbrig]

... rule for SHACL extensions is more abstract. Have to turn into SPARQL, construct SPARQL query, etc.

18:49:08 [hsolbrig]

kcoyle: Since we've said extension doesn't have to be SHACL, I'm confused. Is it defined in a way that uses other technologies?

18:49:43 [hsolbrig]

EricP: SHACL core could be implemented using Python/rdflib for example...

18:50:29 [hsolbrig]

... in principle, you could implement all the stuff in the SPARQL extension mechanism, but I don't have any idea what a JavaScript extension mechanism(s) would look like.

18:51:03 [hsolbrig]

kcoyle: Tells me that core should not be dependent on SPARQL, so abstract syntax would be suitable to describe core.

18:51:25 [TallTed]

s/extension doesn't have to be SHACL/extension doesn't have to be SPARQL/

18:52:21 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: non-normative? Could be normative and defer to SPARQL if issues or visa-versa. We have to make sure we don't break what exists.

18:52:23 [jamsden]

q+

18:52:28 [Arnaud]

ack jamsden

18:53:20 [hsolbrig]

jamsden: Any time you include something in a spec, you need to consider (1) what is its purpose? What does it add? This is a different but redundant approach. Is it necessary?...

18:53:29 [hknublau]

q+

18:54:12 [hsolbrig]

... (2) any time you add something, you have to verify that it is correct and support it -- you can't really say "if this is wrong"... what is the intended use?

18:54:23 [ericP]

q+

18:54:36 [hsolbrig]

... note that questions don't apply to non-normative.

18:55:23 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: the "if this is wrong" is only as a last resort. It is done in many specs.

18:55:37 [Arnaud]

ack hknublau

18:56:16 [hsolbrig]

hnkublau: open to having this as a separate document. Role overlaps with textual definitions that we already have....

18:56:53 [Arnaud]

ack ericP

18:56:54 [hsolbrig]

... SPARQL gives executable definition, and we get SPARQL testing for free.

18:57:54 [hsolbrig]

ericP: verification of syntax is fairly trivial in a language such as Scala. Pretty easy to do machine verification.

18:58:04 [hsolbrig]

arnaud: Has Iovka looked at this?

18:58:12 [hsolbrig]

EricP: Yes - she liked it

18:58:31 [AndyS]

q+

18:58:40 [Arnaud]

ack AndyS

18:58:50 [hsolbrig]

q+ to say I have to leave and someone needs to scribe.

19:00:50 [hknublau]

scribenick: hknublau

19:01:22 [kcoyle]

q+

19:01:29 [Arnaud]

ack hsolbrig

19:01:29 [Zakim]

hsolbrig, you wanted to say I have to leave and someone needs to scribe.

19:01:31 [hknublau]

AndyS: There is a cost of keeping normative definitions in synch

19:01:51 [hknublau]

... in SPARQL the Algebra is normative

19:01:56 [Arnaud]

ack kcoyle

19:02:27 [hknublau]

kcoyle: In DCMI community we had problems with $ variables and binding

19:03:06 [hknublau]

... Would using an Abstract Syntax reduce the need for the SPARQL?

19:03:15 [hknublau]

EricP: Yes IHMO

19:04:48 [Dimitris]

q+

19:05:01 [hknublau]

AndyS: We would have to try. Abstract Syntax would become yet another language.

19:05:50 [hknublau]

Arnaud: We had long discussions on this topic in the early days of the WG. Some people were suggesting an Abstract Syntax then already.

19:06:16 [hknublau]

... ISSUE-52 was opened as a compromise to accommodate that view point.

19:07:30 [hknublau]

... We have a resolution to use SPARQL "as much as possible".

19:07:38 [Arnaud]

ack Dimitris

19:08:08 [hknublau]

Dimitris: Replacing SPARQL with another language would not solve Karen's problem

19:08:15 [hknublau]

... One option would be to hide SPARQL by default

19:08:32 [simonstey]

+q

19:08:47 [Arnaud]

ack simonstey

19:08:54 [hknublau]

Arnaud: Or have Abstract Syntax as an optional view

19:09:38 [hknublau]

simonstey: Abstract Syntax would have made more sense in the beginning, and we could have used SPARQL as one example

19:09:51 [hknublau]

... but changing everything now (at this stage) may not be the best way forward

19:10:30 [hknublau]

Arnaud: The same old positions are resurfacing. Jose is not even present.

19:11:30 [hknublau]

... at least agreement that we should publish this informally, but I see no agreement on more

19:12:48 [hknublau]

EricP: Yes I can prepare it as an Appendix working draft.

19:14:34 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Put Eric's proposed abstract syntax into a Working Draft (Editor's draft)

19:15:06 [ericP]

+1

19:15:06 [simonstey]

+1

19:15:09 [jamsden]

+1

19:15:09 [hknublau]

0

19:15:13 [TallTed]

+1

19:15:15 [kcoyle]

+1

19:15:22 [AndyS]

+1 to at least publish as a note/informative/other -- ideally with evaluation semantics as well

19:15:29 [Dimitris]

+1

19:15:49 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Put Eric's proposed abstract syntax into a Working Draft (Editor's draft)

19:17:02 [hknublau]

Arnaud: Should we close the ticket now?

19:17:10 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-52, put Eric's proposed abstract syntax into a Working Draft (Editor's draft)

19:17:47 [hknublau]

issue-139

19:17:47 [trackbot]

issue-139 -- Can all constraint properties be applied in all scenarios? -- open

19:17:47 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/139

19:18:20 [hknublau]

Arnaud: What is left to decide here?

19:19:36 [simonstey]

https://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html#item05

19:19:48 [kcoyle]

time for another editpr

19:19:56 [ericP]

q+

19:19:57 [kcoyle]

editor's draft?

19:20:03 [Dimitris]

q+

19:20:04 [ericP]

http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#h-constraints

19:20:04 [Arnaud]

ack ericP

19:20:13 [hknublau]

From my perspective the language is good now.

19:20:51 [hknublau]

ericP: The table is still there

19:21:29 [hknublau]

... the language would be slightly more expressive if we allowed everything everywhere/

19:21:47 [hknublau]

... like in ShEx

19:22:35 [Arnaud]

ack Dimitris

19:23:24 [hknublau]

Dimitris: Two questions: a) can they all apply everywhere b) how to implement this, e.g. using the extension mechanism

19:23:32 [hknublau]

q+

19:24:20 [Arnaud]

ack hknublau

19:24:25 [hknublau]

On Value Nodes "forEach": - sh:and/sh:or/sh:not - sh:class/sh:classIn - sh:datatype/sh:datatypeIn - sh:in - sh:maxInclusive/sh:minExclusive etc - sh:maxLength/sh:minLength - sh:nodeKind - sh:pattern - sh:shape - sh:stem -> Just a single (ASK) validator needed On Property Pairs: - sh:disjoint/sh:equals - sh:lessThan/sh:lessThanOrEquals -> Just a single SELECT validator needed (property constraints) On Sets of Value Nodes: - sh:maxCount/sh:minCount [CUT]

19:25:28 [ericP]

http://piratepad.net/Oj8vDGHONz

19:29:23 [hknublau]

hknublau: Discussion based on the pirate pad

19:30:02 [hknublau]

... I don't think there is value in allowing every constraint component everywhere, because many components do not make sense as property/node constraints

19:30:29 [hknublau]

ericP: Kind of agreement

19:30:39 [kcoyle]

Holger, can you put that also in an email? thx

19:30:59 [TallTed]

q+

19:31:10 [hknublau]

Dimitris: Agree in principle, issue with error reporting

19:31:12 [Arnaud]

ack TallTed

19:31:32 [hknublau]

TellTed: Question is who are we making life simpler for, and how much simpler does it become?

19:31:54 [hknublau]

Arnaud: People have different view points

19:32:34 [Arnaud]

trackbot, end meeting

19:32:34 [trackbot]

Zakim, list attendees

19:32:34 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, simonstey, AndyS, kcoyle, jamsden, hknublau, TallTed, pano, Dimitris, hsolbrig, .6

19:32:42 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

19:32:42 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/07-shapes-minutes.html trackbot

19:32:43 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, bye

19:32:43 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items