IRC log of shapes on 2016-07-28
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 18:00:23 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #shapes
- 18:00:23 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/28-shapes-irc
- 18:00:25 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
- 18:00:25 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #shapes
- 18:00:27 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be SHAPES
- 18:00:27 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot
- 18:00:28 [trackbot]
- Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
- 18:00:29 [trackbot]
- Date: 28 July 2016
- 18:00:52 [Arnaud]
- chair: Arnaud
- 18:00:56 [kcoyle]
- kcoyle has joined #shapes
- 18:00:57 [Arnaud]
- agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.07.28
- 18:03:00 [hknublau]
- present+
- 18:03:25 [pano]
- present+
- 18:03:32 [kcoyle]
- present+
- 18:04:09 [Arnaud]
- I'm fighting with webex myself...
- 18:04:59 [TallTed]
- present+
- 18:06:46 [Arnaud]
- present+
- 18:08:24 [Arnaud]
- regrets: jamsden, andys
- 18:10:39 [Dimitris]
- scribenick: dimitris
- 18:11:15 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 21 July 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-shapes-minutes.html
- 18:11:37 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 21 July 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-shapes-minutes.html
- 18:12:02 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: we meet again next week
- 18:12:15 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-175
- 18:12:41 [hknublau]
- +1
- 18:12:44 [Dimitris]
- ... Dimitris raised an issue and put together some proposals for renaming the term scope
- 18:12:48 [Dimitris]
- +1
- 18:13:12 [kcoyle]
- +1
- 18:13:32 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-175
- 18:13:39 [Dimitris]
- ... let's open it but should try and close it next week
- 18:13:55 [Dimitris]
- topic: ISSUE-134
- 18:14:12 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-134 as no longer relevant
- 18:14:33 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: Looks like this has become irrelevant with the choices we made
- 18:14:34 [TallTed]
- +1
- 18:14:57 [pano]
- +1
- 18:14:58 [Dimitris]
- +1
- 18:15:06 [kcoyle]
- +1
- 18:15:26 [kcoyle]
- q+
- 18:15:34 [Arnaud]
- ack kcoyle
- 18:16:00 [Dimitris]
- kcoyle: have we accepted the proposal for the property path generalization and can anyone point to that?
- 18:16:35 [Dimitris]
- Dimitris: yes
- 18:17:15 [Dimitris]
- Kcoyle: I can look up the resolution
- 18:17:37 [kcoyle]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/06/30-shapes-minutes.html#resolution04
- 18:18:49 [hknublau_]
- hknublau_ has joined #shapes
- 18:19:23 [kcoyle]
- we can hear you
- 18:19:35 [kcoyle]
- maybe time to retire?
- 18:20:13 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-134 as no longer relevant
- 18:20:47 [hknublau_]
- +1
- 18:21:50 [Dimitris]
- topic: drafts publication
- 18:22:08 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: When can we publish a new SHACL draft?
- 18:22:38 [hknublau_]
- q+
- 18:22:44 [Dimitris]
- ... how much time do the editors need?
- 18:22:49 [Arnaud]
- ack hknublau_
- 18:23:18 [Dimitris]
- hknublau: I think issue 133 will have a big impact and then the renaming of scope
- 18:23:43 [Dimitris]
- ... after these are resolved mostly readability and editorial issues will remain
- 18:23:48 [Dimitris]
- q+
- 18:24:21 [Arnaud]
- ack Dimitris
- 18:25:14 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: we can decide if we delay 133 and 175
- 18:25:49 [Dimitris]
- dimitris: I think we should delay a couple of weeks to make the syntax stable
- 18:27:07 [kcoyle]
- q+
- 18:27:14 [Arnaud]
- ack kcoyle
- 18:27:23 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: The abstract syntax was improved to tackle the issues we discussed last week but people should check the new document
- 18:28:09 [Dimitris]
- kcoyle: I would like to hear from people what they think about it
- 18:28:30 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: I'd like us to agree on a plan
- 18:28:31 [ericP]
- q+ to say i'd love to rescue the word "parameters"
- 18:29:06 [Dimitris]
- ericp: there are many buttons that can hide different things in the document
- 18:29:16 [Dimitris]
- q+
- 18:29:22 [Arnaud]
- ack ericP
- 18:29:22 [Zakim]
- ericP, you wanted to say i'd love to rescue the word "parameters"
- 18:29:27 [Arnaud]
- ack Dimitris
- 18:30:33 [Dimitris]
- Dimitris: I noticed some duplication in the examples, would be nice to align them
- 18:30:34 [hknublau_]
- Thanks @ericP to the collapse button for the BNF
- 18:30:49 [Dimitris]
- ericP: Scoping was a reason for duplication
- 18:32:13 [Dimitris]
- ... would be nice to make the validation work without explicit scopes
- 18:32:34 [Dimitris]
- Dimitris: There was already an issue about this by Holger
- 18:33:29 [Dimitris]
- hknublau: It is useful but since we are keep changing at the moment and syncing is not easy
- 18:33:56 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: can we somehow automate the syncing
- 18:34:17 [Dimitris]
- ericP: Scala would be an option
- 18:34:32 [TallTed]
- "Nary" should become "N-ary" ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arity "Nary" has meanings other than intended.
- 18:34:42 [kcoyle]
- thx ted
- 18:36:20 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: Holger and Dimitris should signal when you are done so that Eric and Karen can start
- 18:37:23 [Dimitris]
- Ericp: I will do another pass at naming things
- 18:37:40 [Dimitris]
- ... like parameters / arguments
- 18:38:41 [Dimitris]
- tallted: if you want to change terminology you should make a complete proposal
- 18:39:30 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: I agree with Ted, if you want to rename something make a concrete proposal, at this point we should be very precise
- 18:40:08 [Dimitris]
- topic: ISSUE-133
- 18:41:10 [ericP]
- TallTed, s/nary/n-ary/g done
- 18:41:11 [kcoyle]
- q+
- 18:41:12 [Dimitris]
- ... last week we had a strawpoll and the WG was divided with a slight preference for merging Shapes and NodeConstraints
- 18:41:16 [Arnaud]
- ack kcoyle
- 18:42:01 [Dimitris]
- kcoyle: with Shape becoming a subclass of Constraint it doesn't work for me because we have shapes at different levels
- 18:42:40 [Dimitris]
- ... I need someone to explain to me how this works when constraints contain constraints
- 18:43:00 [Dimitris]
- ... at this point shapes look shapeless
- 18:44:10 [Dimitris]
- hknublau: we already have this situation anyway, shapes can point to NodeConstraints and NodeConstraints can point to Shapes
- 18:44:43 [Dimitris]
- ... it depends on if we agree if a Shape is actually a big constraints
- 18:45:15 [Dimitris]
- ... it is like an AND construct
- 18:45:43 [Dimitris]
- ... from this point of view merging makes sense
- 18:46:13 [Dimitris]
- kcoyle: then why do we still have constraint?
- 18:47:08 [Dimitris]
- ... so Shape is a Constraint
- 18:48:42 [Dimitris]
- hknublau: before we had sh:constraint to link to a NodeConstraint but now we attach directly to the shape
- 18:48:52 [Dimitris]
- q+
- 18:50:39 [Dimitris]
- EricP: the problem was with filters I think that was not clear if filters had filters what is happening
- 18:50:49 [Arnaud]
- https://www.w3.org/2016/07/21-shapes-minutes.html#item04
- 18:51:01 [Dimitris]
- q-
- 18:52:15 [kcoyle]
- I think that's what I see, too
- 18:52:38 [Arnaud]
- STRAWPOLL: a) merge Shape and NodeConstraint, b) don't merge Shape and NodeConstraint
- 18:52:41 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: this merge collapses concepts
- 18:53:05 [Dimitris]
- Dimitris: I also like to keep things separate
- 18:53:08 [hknublau_]
- a) +1 b) -0.7
- 18:53:11 [kcoyle]
- a) -.9 b) +1
- 18:53:30 [Dimitris]
- a) -0 b) +1
- 18:53:46 [TallTed]
- a +0.9 b -0.9
- 18:53:49 [pano]
- a:+1 b:0
- 18:53:56 [ericP]
- a) -.9
- 18:54:03 [ericP]
- a) -.9 b) +1
- 18:56:39 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: what do we do with the strawpoll now? Either one would pass because noone has objected firmly
- 18:57:01 [TallTed]
- s/a +0.9 b -0.9/a +1 b -1/
- 18:59:15 [Dimitris]
- ... Eric, how is this related to ShEx?
- 18:59:50 [Dimitris]
- EricP, this will not change the abstract syntax, this is less about the alignment with ShEx
- 19:00:00 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: merge Shape and NodeConstraint
- 19:00:08 [hknublau_]
- +1
- 19:00:11 [Dimitris]
- s/EricP, /EricP: /
- 19:00:16 [pano]
- +1
- 19:00:20 [TallTed]
- +1
- 19:00:21 [Dimitris]
- -0
- 19:00:21 [kcoyle]
- -.9
- 19:00:29 [ericP]
- -.9
- 19:00:58 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: merge Shape and NodeConstraint
- 19:01:28 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: with that done we can close issue 133, right?
- 19:01:47 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-133, based on the series of related resolutions
- 19:01:59 [hknublau_]
- +1
- 19:02:02 [Dimitris]
- hknublau: there are a couple of follow-up issues mentioned in my email but can be treated separate
- 19:02:04 [Dimitris]
- +1
- 19:02:11 [pano]
- +1
- 19:02:51 [kcoyle]
- +1
- 19:02:59 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-133, based on the series of related resolutions
- 19:04:11 [Dimitris]
- hknublau: with the merging sh:or is simpler and we can drop sh:datatypeIn and sh:classIn
- 19:04:18 [Arnaud]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jul/0076.html
- 19:04:46 [Arnaud]
- issue-135
- 19:04:46 [trackbot]
- issue-135 -- Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? -- open
- 19:04:46 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/135
- 19:04:52 [Dimitris]
- ... and another issue is if sh:and/or point to constraints which is indirectly resolved
- 19:05:15 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-135, no longer relevant
- 19:05:19 [Dimitris]
- +1
- 19:05:22 [pano]
- +1
- 19:05:23 [hknublau_]
- +1
- 19:05:33 [TallTed]
- +1
- 19:05:38 [kcoyle]
- +1
- 19:05:49 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-135, no longer relevant
- 19:06:12 [Arnaud]
- issue-141
- 19:06:12 [trackbot]
- issue-141 -- How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges -- open
- 19:06:12 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/141
- 19:06:40 [Dimitris]
- proposes: remove sh:datatypeIn and sh:classIn components as they can be expressed with sh:or
- 19:07:22 [hknublau_]
- +1
- 19:07:40 [Dimitris]
- s/proposes/PROPOSED/
- 19:09:04 [Dimitris]
- +1
- 19:09:10 [ericP]
- +1
- 19:09:23 [Dimitris]
- ericP: should we remove sh:in as well
- 19:09:29 [TallTed]
- +1
- 19:09:41 [pano]
- 0
- 19:09:41 [Dimitris]
- hknublau: sh:in is useful and I would keep it
- 19:09:51 [kcoyle]
- 0
- 19:09:57 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: Remove sh:datatypeIn and sh:classIn components as they can be expressed with sh:or
- 19:11:14 [Arnaud]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-141, mixed ranges can now be uniformly handled
- 19:11:14 [Dimitris]
- PROPOSED: close issue 141, mixed ranges can be expressed with sh:or
- 19:11:19 [hknublau_]
- +1
- 19:11:33 [Dimitris]
- +1
- 19:11:45 [TallTed]
- +1
- 19:11:45 [ericP]
- +1
- 19:11:54 [pano]
- 0
- 19:12:08 [kcoyle]
- +1
- 19:12:12 [Arnaud]
- RESOLVED: Close issue 141, mixed ranges can be expressed with sh:or
- 19:12:18 [hknublau_]
- Wow, we are on a run. Should we handle the scope naming issue next?
- 19:13:02 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: let's talk about nested severities
- 19:13:24 [Dimitris]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jul/0079.html
- 19:14:31 [Dimitris]
- EricP, I had an action item to see how ShEx people would do it and they said they avoid it
- 19:14:32 [Arnaud]
- action-37
- 19:14:32 [trackbot]
- action-37 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to Check what happens in the shex extension that has severities -- due 2016-05-26 -- OPEN
- 19:14:32 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/37
- 19:16:01 [Arnaud]
- issue-150
- 19:16:01 [trackbot]
- issue-150 -- Treatment of nested severities -- open
- 19:16:01 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/150
- 19:17:31 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: Dimitris sent an email with his preferences
- 19:18:08 [Arnaud]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jul/0079.html
- 19:22:12 [kcoyle]
- lowest = least severe?
- 19:22:33 [Dimitris]
- 19:22:35 [Dimitris]
- b) Use the outer, unless the inner was lower e.g.
- 19:22:37 [Dimitris]
- outer: Warning, inner: Info -> use Info
- 19:22:39 [Dimitris]
- outer: Warning, inner: Violation -> use Warning
- 19:24:13 [kcoyle]
- q+
- 19:26:24 [Arnaud]
- ack kcoyle
- 19:26:58 [Dimitris]
- kcoyle: I would want the opposite of what Dimitris prefers, the most severe
- 19:27:30 [Dimitris]
- ... if it is inner or outer, the most severe should win
- 19:28:13 [hknublau_]
- q+
- 19:28:17 [Dimitris]
- Arnaud: there are different dimensions
- 19:28:31 [Arnaud]
- ack hknublau_
- 19:28:34 [Dimitris]
- kcoyle: but we need to make it very clear
- 19:29:28 [TallTed]
- q+
- 19:29:33 [Dimitris]
- hknublau: I think the current spec is OK for me, if an nested object returns a violation there are many cases where we want to override
- 19:30:00 [Dimitris]
- ... I need some time to look into this in more detail
- 19:30:04 [Arnaud]
- ack TallTed
- 19:30:46 [Dimitris]
- TallTed: I think the conceptualization of this is key
- 19:31:00 [Dimitris]
- ... I have data about people and require an address
- 19:31:41 [Dimitris]
- ... within the address I can allow a city or state, or more details, if the inner shape is the address
- 19:32:02 [Dimitris]
- ... my address shape must have a street address
- 19:32:35 [hknublau_]
- sh:shape may even take a companion parameter to specify the minimum severity.
- 19:32:41 [Dimitris]
- ... the violation of the inner shape should not mean that the outer shape is broken
- 19:54:15 [Arnaud]
- trackbot, end meeting
- 19:54:15 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 19:54:15 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, pano, kcoyle, TallTed, Arnaud
- 19:54:23 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 19:54:23 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/28-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
- 19:54:24 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 19:54:24 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items