<scribe> scribenick: dimitris

Admin

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 27 Sept 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html

<simonstey> +1

<Labra> +1

<kcoyle> +1

Arnaud: There were some comments that some issues from last week might have been closed not knowing that they were not editorial

<TallTed> +0

Arnaud: this is a chance to speak if you agree with those comments

<simonstey> +q

+1, I was not in the call but agree with the resolution

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 27 Sept 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html

Public comments

arnaud: Once we close all the issues we can go to the implementation stage but there was a last call step that is now removed
... we record public comments, we address and show to the commenter and ask if the response is acceptable
... we do not have to do this at this point, we are not in CR
... this is from a W3C process point of view
... if there is disagreement for some comments it goes to the director who has the final say

<simonstey> +q

<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#doc-reviews

simonstey: according to the new process document the document is available for review and comments as soon as it is published

arnaud: this is a SHOULD but it is in our interested as we already said to address all public comments

TallTed: the wiki page would look better as a table, at least for summary

<Arnaud> Here is an example we could follow: https://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Comments

kcoyle: I can do something like that

Arnaud: Dimitris raised some issues that need WG approval and I encourage everyone to do that

Disposal of raised issues

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-180, ISSUE-181, ISSUE-182, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-184, ISSUE-185

Arnaud: issue 182 is marked as editorial but looks like it is not

Kcoyle: indeed, let's mark it a non-editorial issue

<TallTed> +1 open all

<simonstey> +1

<kcoyle> +1

+1

<Labra> +1

RESOLUTION: Open ISSUE-180, ISSUE-181, ISSUE-182, ISSUE-183, ISSUE-184, ISSUE-185

<simonstey> +q

ISSUE-22 - recursion

<simonstey> issue-22

<trackbot> issue-22 -- Treatment of recursive shape definitions -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/22

simonstey: what does indirectly mean here?

I changed a bit the wording here: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes-recursion

Dimitris I changed a bit the wording to "A recursive shape is a shape that its constraints refers to the shape directly or transitively via..."

kcoyle: Do we have error checking in SHACL in general?

<TallTed> Maybe "A recursive shape is a shape that its constraints refers to the shape directly or transitively ..." -> "A recursive shape is has constraints refers to itself ..." The CYA is the last sentence -- "The handling of recursive shapes is not defined in SHACL and is left to SHACL processor implementations."

TallTed: what is the current status?

<Labra> +1 for the new wording

Dimitris: I removed the failure from the spec, since it is undefined anyway

Labra: I like the new wording, I like keeping it undefined to support ShEx use cases

TallTed: There are 3 proposals, the previous PWD, the ED and the proposal from the email

Dimitris: I made this proposal to try and close a hole in the spec but if people want to leave it like this is ok for me

TallTed: leaving it undefined requires less effort

Arnaud: the issue is already closed and there is not much incentive to change it

<TallTed> PROPOSED: Retain the current Editor's Draft wording (modulo language cleanup) of "3.1.1 Recursive shapes", and table ISSUE-22 to whatever extent it is related

Dimitris: Since there is no strong support I withdraw the proposal

+1

<simonstey> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Labra> +0.5

<kcoyle> +0

RESOLUTION: Retain the current Editor's Draft wording (modulo language cleanup) of "3.1.1 Recursive shapes", and table ISSUE-22 to whatever extent it is related

Filters and focus nodes

Kcoyle: we have targets, filters constraints and something called focus nodes
... the final node on which a constraint operates is called a focus node, also the focus node constraints
... focus is happening in multiple places and I am confused

Arnaud: there is a recursive definition that seems editorial

(discussing about details on focus nodes)

summary , DImitris will change the draft and define better the term focus node, Karen will approve his changes

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting