RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference

<kcoyle> hmmm. not getting audio on webex - anyone else having this problem?

<simonstey> me neither

<Arnaud> same here

<Arnaud> let's hope Eric shows up

<pano> same here

<Arnaud> "Thanks for using WebEx." or not...

<simonstey> "how do you rate your experience?"

<kcoyle> Not, I think, Arnaud, definitely not

<Dimitris> cannot enter by phone either

<Arnaud> eric is working on it

<Arnaud> hand in there

<Arnaud> s/ahdn/hang/

<Arnaud> oh my...

<Arnaud> "This is intermission is brought to you by WebEx."...

<pano> :P

<Arnaud> eric is still working

<Arnaud> at least that's what he says ;-)

<Arnaud> I do have a telephone bridge we could use but it doesn't support VOIP

"WebEx helps you meet online with anyone, anywhere, so you can get more done—faster and cost-effectively." by not having those time consuming meetings after all...

<Arnaud> can everybody call on a phone?

<Arnaud> I can provide you with a local number

<kcoyle> phone ok, but i'm local, thus np

<pano> if it is a local number would be possible for me

<Dimitris> I can as well with skype

<simonstey> same for me

<simonstey> if it's a toll free number

<Arnaud> according to eric, it should work now

<scribe> scribenick: TallTed

Admin

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 4 August 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/04-shapes-minutes.html

<kcoyle> minutes look ok - i looked

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 4 August 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/04-shapes-minutes.html

Drafts Publication

Arnaud: internal WG review is requested of Abstract Syntax Draft (http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-abstract-syntax/) and SHACL Draft (http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/) for PWD in TR space

kcoyle: [in favor]

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish latest editor's draft of SHACL

Dimitris: good shape for PWD

<kcoyle> +1

<Dimitris> +1

<pano> +1

<simonstey> +1

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say propose that the current hasShape have an issue saying "this is intended to be in shacl core"

+1

<AndyS> +1

ericP: [garbled audio echoing q request]

<AndyS> (links to major issues are also good ... realistically, feedback is a bonus)

<Dimitris> \me Eric, can you write this down? I cannot understand

<marqh> +1

<Arnaud> ericp, are you objecting to the publication?

<ericP> i had expected that the functionality of sh:hasShape to be in core. can we have issue text to say that?

ericP: i had expected that the functionality of sh:hasShape to be in core. can we have issue text within the draft to say that?

<Arnaud> I lost audio

<Dimitris> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/140

Dimitris: maybe what you need is resolution of issue-140 ?

ericP: I'm looking for some context-sensitive validation...

<Arnaud> guys, we're completely off topic

<Dimitris> part of issue-140 : ""Optionally, an individual node can be used as additional parameter to the validation process, resulting in validation of that node only."

<Dimitris> Eric, have a closer look at issue 140 in case it covers this issue before opening a new one

RESOLUTION: Publish latest editor's draft of SHACL

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish Abstract syntax draft as First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

<kcoyle> +1

<ericP> +1

<Dimitris> +1

+1

<pano> +1

<AndyS> +1

<marqh> +1

<simonstey> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish Abstract syntax draft as First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

Getting SHACL to CR

<AndyS> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec

<ericP> LC was basically telling i18n and wai that it was time to poke holes in the spec

<AndyS> """ A Candidate Recommendation corresponds to a "Last Call Working Draft" [as it was]"""

Arnaud: w3c process has a milestone of "Candidate Recommendation" (overlaps with some of what was once "Last Call"), with some specific requirements...
... [reviews requirements]

marqh: what implementations are we aware of? or groups or individuals working on such?

<AndyS> How current is https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite ?

<ericP> SPARQL implementation report

<ericP> ShEx validation tests

<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about post-WG community

<ericP> +1 to AndyS's point

AndyS: companies often want to get listed on compliance/implementation reports after PR

<Arnaud> issue-92

<trackbot> issue-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92

ISSUE-92: additive repeated properties

<Arnaud> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Aug/0009.html

Dimitris: rough concurrence with Holger's concern; need to read more carefully

kcoyle: it would be helpful to know how this could be handled with SHACL today, vs Eric's proposal
... i.e., without sh:partition

ISSUE-150: nested severities

Arnaud: we've discussed this a few times, without significant motion, and clear disagreement. how can we move forward?

issue-150?

<trackbot> issue-150 -- Treatment of nested severities -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/150

<Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: treat sh:Warning and sh:Info as violations like sh:Violation a) yes, b) no (status quo)

<Dimitris> a) +1 b) -0.9

<kcoyle> a) +1 b) 0

<ericP> a) +1 b) 0

<simonstey> a) +1 b) 0

a +1 b -0.9

<ericP> +1 to Dimitris's approach

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting