IRC log of shapes on 2016-09-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:58:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:58:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:58:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:58:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
12:58:05 [kcoyle]
doesn't for me - says too early to log on
12:58:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:58:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
12:58:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:58:06 [trackbot]
Date: 27 September 2016
12:58:07 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #shapes
13:00:01 [TallTed]
Webex thinks the call is tomorrow...
13:00:08 [Arnaud]
yes, hold on a minute
13:00:12 [Arnaud]
eric is working on it
13:00:19 [hknublau]
hknublau has joined #shapes
13:00:28 [marqh]
marqh has joined #shapes
13:00:51 [TallTed]
TallTed has changed the topic to: Shapes WG: Next agenda: -- ...Webex is being updated...
13:01:45 [kcoyle]
webex works now
13:02:11 [Arnaud]
yes, you may need to refresh the page to get access
13:03:35 [hknublau]
13:03:40 [TallTed]
TallTed has changed the topic to: Shapes WG: Next agenda: ...Webex got a late invite; please reload...
13:04:10 [marqh]
13:04:42 [pano]
pano has joined #shapes
13:04:45 [simonstey]
13:05:55 [kcoyle]
13:06:07 [pano]
13:06:31 [hsolbrig]
hsolbrig has joined #shapes
13:06:42 [Arnaud]
sorry, struggling with audio (again)
13:06:48 [hsolbrig]
13:09:36 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #shapes
13:09:47 [marqh]
similarly i do too, I am still updating my calendar to free this space regularly
13:10:06 [marqh]
... * pano I have to leave at 10:00 AM eastern time
13:12:23 [hsolbrig]
I have to leave at about 9:55 eastern time due to another meeting as well
13:12:26 [Arnaud]
13:13:58 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 21 Sept 2016 Telecon:
13:14:16 [pano]
13:14:22 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 21 Sept 2016 Telecon:
13:15:54 [pano]
topic: next meetings
13:18:11 [pano]
pano: I can't guarantee being there on Tuesdays
13:18:11 [marqh]
alternation of day makes attendance more challenging, i'd prefer not to
13:21:01 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: despite the challenges it represents for Pano to attend, we will have our calls on Tuesday
13:21:07 [pano]
... we can do Tuesdays and I'll try to make it as much as possible
13:21:13 [marqh]
13:21:15 [ericP]
13:21:29 [simonstey]
0 (don't care)
13:21:50 [kcoyle]
13:21:58 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: despite the challenges it represents for Pano to attend, we will have our calls on Tuesday
13:22:03 [Labra]
Labra has joined #shapes
13:22:16 [pano]
Arnaud: if Jose doesn't call in regularly we will change it back to Wednesday
13:22:39 [pano]
topic: Public comments
13:22:58 [Labra]
I am starting my connection
13:23:35 [Labra]
I had another meeting just before this one
13:24:23 [pano]
Arnaud: As we try to get to CR it will be a problem if there are public comments that are left unsatisfied.
13:26:07 [pano]
... we have to keep track of all the comments and the handling and reacting of these to get of CR, and if there are unaddressed comments we will have to issue a new CR
13:27:04 [hsolbrig]
13:27:48 [Arnaud]
ack hsolbrig
13:28:49 [pano]
hsolbrig: With respects to the Peter's comment on precision of the spec, the precision is extremely important and I applaud his push for this.
13:30:33 [pano]
topic: Disposal of Raised Issues
13:31:31 [pano]
Arnaud: there's one issue that Holger raised, which helps in tackling comments.
13:31:31 [Arnaud]
13:31:59 [simonstey]
13:32:20 [hknublau]
13:32:22 [pano]
subtopic: ISSUE-179
13:32:26 [TallTed]
13:32:32 [kcoyle]
13:32:35 [Labra]
13:32:38 [pano]
13:32:39 [hsolbrig]
13:32:55 [Arnaud]
13:34:08 [pano]
topic: ISSUE-163
13:34:37 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-163, as addressed
13:34:40 [pano]
Arnaud: There was a message from Holger saying he believes this can be closed now
13:34:41 [hknublau]
13:34:47 [simonstey]
13:34:47 [trackbot]
issue-163 -- should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification -- open
13:34:47 [trackbot]
13:34:54 [kcoyle]
13:34:56 [hsolbrig]
13:35:02 [simonstey]
13:35:08 [TallTed]
13:35:12 [pano]
13:35:14 [ericP]
13:35:14 [marqh]
13:35:16 [Labra]
13:35:45 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-163, as addressed
13:36:01 [pano]
topic: ISSUE-106: annotation properties
13:36:17 [Arnaud]
PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed by this change:
13:36:43 [pano]
... again, Holger indicated that this issue has been resolved
13:36:51 [simonstey]
13:36:56 [hknublau]
13:36:58 [kcoyle]
13:37:07 [TallTed]
13:37:21 [pano]
13:37:35 [Labra]
13:37:40 [hsolbrig]
13:37:42 [ericP]
13:37:57 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-106 as addressed by this change:
13:38:10 [pano]
topic: ISSUE-107: annotations v. arguments
13:38:30 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently specified
13:38:49 [simonstey]
13:38:49 [trackbot]
issue-107 -- annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name -- open
13:38:49 [trackbot]
13:39:09 [hknublau]
13:39:21 [pano]
... there was some discussion on this one
13:39:35 [kcoyle]
13:39:45 [TallTed]
13:39:47 [hsolbrig]
13:39:51 [pano]
13:39:55 [simonstey]
13:40:14 [Labra]
13:40:18 [ericP]
q+ to ask if errors are an annotation
13:40:56 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
13:40:56 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to ask if errors are an annotation
13:41:38 [pano]
ericP: it seems like errors messages are annotations, in the sense that they dont have semantic impact. Am I right here?
13:42:34 [ericP]
13:42:53 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-107 leaving annotation properties as currently specified
13:43:12 [pano]
hknublau: Yes, they are. They are a very small part though, and I don't see a problem.
13:43:38 [pano]
topic: ISSUE-142: loose terminology
13:44:18 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and its use throughout the document.
13:44:20 [pano]
Arnaud: Peter has expressed concerns about closing this issue.
13:45:18 [hknublau]
13:45:33 [hsolbrig]
13:45:44 [hsolbrig]
13:45:47 [Arnaud]
ack hsolbrig
13:45:54 [pano]
ericP: this issue isn't a very helpful one
13:46:09 [marqh]
13:46:16 [simonstey]
13:46:19 [Arnaud]
ack marqh
13:46:19 [hsolbrig]
13:46:36 [pano]
hsolbrig: I agree. There are some loose terminology issues in the spec, but there should be clear issues for these.
13:48:13 [pano]
marqh: there are some worthwile parts in this issue that could be seperated out as separate issues that can be discussed more productively
13:48:34 [pano]
... I'm happy to try and do that in the coming week
13:49:43 [hknublau]
13:49:56 [Arnaud]
ack hknublau
13:50:32 [kcoyle]
13:52:22 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
13:53:28 [pano]
kcoyle: It is difficult to explain that something is unclear. One of the useful things we could do is do a group read through of the spec, talking about and working through parts that are unclear.
13:53:44 [pano]
... It would be nice to have that as a discussion.
13:53:53 [pano]
13:55:04 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-142 as addressed by the Terminology section and its use throughout the document, separate issues should be raised against specific terminology issues
13:55:26 [kcoyle]
13:55:30 [hsolbrig]
13:55:41 [hsolbrig]
Apologies - have to leave for a 10:00 meeitng. Thnx
13:55:55 [pano]
13:56:49 [pano]
... That's interesting idea. I can only propose dicussing these on email currently.
13:57:09 [ericP]
13:57:13 [Arnaud]
ACTION: marqh to take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed
13:57:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-43 - Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed [on Mark Hedley - due 2016-10-04].
13:59:02 [TallTed]
13:59:17 [Labra]
Arnaud: Validate individual nodes
13:59:17 [Arnaud]
ack TallTed
13:59:23 [Arnaud]
13:59:24 [trackbot]
issue-140 -- SHACL needs to support validation of individual nodes -- open
13:59:24 [trackbot]
13:59:36 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-140 as addressed by
13:59:37 [Labra]
TallTed: It's extremely vague
13:59:49 [Labra]
...every implementation can handle it differently
13:59:51 [ericP]
q+ to say there's some value to APIs
14:00:13 [Labra]
Holger: Do people agree that we need to support this?
14:00:27 [Labra]
...maybe it is an optional feature and we don't need to support this
14:01:07 [Labra]
...we have already defined for a node what it is to be validated
14:01:23 [Labra] is similar to the hasShape function
14:01:45 [Arnaud]
ack ericP
14:01:45 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say there's some value to APIs
14:02:12 [Labra]
Eric: XML Schema gives a couple of ways on how to associate a document with a schema
14:02:19 [Labra] is a well go to go
14:02:35 [Labra] is a node in a graph and a shape in a schema and check if it matches
14:03:37 [Labra]
...the most important thing is to say this is how we validate a node in a graph...instead of using selectors
14:04:05 [Labra]
Arnaud: Do you agree with Ted?
14:04:45 [Labra]
Eric: Yes, in the abstract syntax and semantics the examples define shapes and instance data except in the section about selectors
14:05:25 [Labra]
Holger: The input basically is a data graph and a shapes graph
14:06:01 [Labra]
Eric: in the examples in the abstract syntax and semantics the notion of validation take a node in a graph and a shape in a schema
14:06:14 [Labra] is very simple to follow that
14:06:35 [Labra]
Holger: But the difference is that we don't know the shape, only the node
14:07:19 [Labra]
EricP: validation is a function that takes a shape in a schema and a node in agraph, then the exampels can be formulated in top of that
14:07:44 [Labra]
Holger: We have already defined what it means for a node to be validated in a shapes luuks for all the shapes
14:07:56 [Labra]
14:08:50 [Labra]
Ted: It seems that we are realizing that there are three inputs, a graph, a shapes graph and a node
14:09:53 [Labra]
Arnaud: there is not going to be a consensus on this at this point
14:11:12 [Labra]
Holger: this should be something that implementations can define one way or another
14:11:53 [Arnaud]
14:11:53 [trackbot]
issue-155 -- problems in the description of property pair constraints -- open
14:11:53 [trackbot]
14:11:56 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-155 as handled by the current draft.
14:12:02 [hknublau]
14:12:47 [simonstey]
14:13:09 [ericP] defines a semantics for arbitrary numbers of triples
14:14:08 [Labra]
In that example you can see that there are lots of permutations that we cover
14:14:35 [kcoyle]
14:14:45 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
14:15:16 [Labra]
kcoyle: I would need an explanation from Holger about why Peter's comments are valid or don't need to be addressed
14:15:24 [simonstey]
this issue was raised back in april
14:15:42 [Labra]
...Holger says I don't see it as a problem...can you explain that?
14:16:19 [Labra]
Holger: the issue has been raised in april and there has been a lot of work that has solved these issues
14:16:51 [Labra]
...the person who raised this issue is no longer in the WG and nobody else is complaining
14:17:33 [Labra]
Arnaud: Peter didn't complain after taking a look at the agenda also, but we don't know
14:18:10 [Labra]
...if nobody is going to champion the issue, maybe we can just close it optimistically
14:18:21 [Labra]
...and we can reopen it later
14:18:38 [kcoyle]
14:18:41 [ericP]
14:18:44 [TallTed]
14:18:46 [Labra]
14:18:52 [simonstey]
I would argue that at least some parts of the issue were already addressed
14:19:08 [simonstey]
e.g., we dont have inversepropconstraints anymore
14:19:15 [simonstey]
14:19:39 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-155 as handled by the current draft
14:25:20 [Labra]
Arnaud: There is some work translating from ShEx testsuite to SHACL
14:26:48 [Labra]
Labra: I am working on it...and I expect to have it in the next 3 weeks or so
14:27:28 [Labra]
Labra: one problem is that there are differences in the semantics and also differences in the way that the processors are being called
14:27:36 [Labra]
...but I am working on it
14:28:12 [kcoyle]
14:28:18 [Arnaud]
ack kcoyle
14:28:26 [Arnaud]
14:28:26 [trackbot]
issue-111 -- How should the working group address the issues called out in the WG charter? -- open
14:28:26 [trackbot]
14:28:51 [Labra]
KCoyle: it sounds to me that what he proposes makes sense
14:29:13 [Labra]
...I could try to message this into a fuller introduction for the spec
14:29:45 [Labra]
Holger: I appreciate it and if other people answer in the mailing list
14:29:53 [Labra]
...any input is appreciated
14:30:27 [Labra]
KCoyle: I will do it in an email
14:31:37 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
14:31:37 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
14:31:37 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, marqh, simonstey, kcoyle, pano, hsolbrig, Arnaud, .5
14:31:42 [TallTed]
14:31:44 [TallTed]
14:31:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:31:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
14:31:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
14:31:46 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
14:31:46 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: marqh to take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed [1]
14:31:46 [RRSAgent]
recorded in