IRC log of shapes on 2016-12-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:59:14 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #shapes

12:59:14 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-shapes-irc

12:59:16 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes

12:59:16 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #shapes

12:59:18 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be SHAPES

12:59:18 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot

12:59:19 [trackbot]

Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference

12:59:19 [trackbot]

Date: 14 December 2016

12:59:34 [hknublau]

hknublau has joined #shapes

12:59:46 [Arnaud]

agenda: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.12.14

12:59:50 [Arnaud]

chair: Arnaud

12:59:58 [AndyS]

present+

13:00:34 [pano]

pano has joined #shapes

13:02:13 [hknublau]

present+

13:02:34 [Arnaud]

present+

13:02:49 [ipolikoff]

ipolikoff has joined #shapes

13:03:04 [TallTed]

TallTed has joined #shapes

13:04:11 [AndyS]

scribenick: AndyS

13:04:16 [kcoyle]

present+

13:04:17 [AndyS]

scribe: Andy Seaborne

13:04:22 [pano]

present+

13:04:22 [Dimitris]

present+

13:04:49 [TallTed]

present+

13:05:58 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 30 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/30-shapes-minutes.html

13:06:16 [ericP]

present+

13:06:30 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 30 Nov 2016 Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/30-shapes-minutes.html

13:07:19 [AndyS]

next meeting : maybe December 21 : Arnaud and EricP can not make it.

13:07:33 [AndyS]

Offer of chair?

13:08:59 [AndyS]

Arnaud: take this to email

13:09:16 [AndyS]

topic: review of edits.

13:09:46 [AndyS]

holger: mostly editorial MUST, SHOULD etc.

13:10:34 [AndyS]

... (1) now don't say that TTL file is normative. It is a placeholder for when the namespace is published.

13:11:17 [AndyS]

... (2) sh;in can take blank nodes as list members : symmetry with sh:value.

13:11:25 [AndyS]

s/;/:/

13:13:29 [AndyS]

arnaud: test - is an impl changed?

13:13:56 [Dimitris]

q+

13:14:44 [Arnaud]

ack Dimitris

13:15:12 [ericP]

an edit would be editorial if there were no credible interpretation in one version and the edit changes that interpretation

13:16:18 [AndyS]

... at the moment, this is about highlighting a change - not full CR republish. (this is advice, not full W3C process)

13:16:51 [AndyS]

kcoyle: I have been suggesting editorial changes

13:17:05 [Dimitris]

Karen, I will follow up on those suggestions

13:17:44 [AndyS]

topic: WG Outlook

13:18:25 [AndyS]

arnaud: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0045.html

13:18:50 [AndyS]

... W3C has changed. Less keen on extensions.

13:19:26 [AndyS]

... now a AC discussion. Not discretion of team/director.

13:20:00 [AndyS]

... harder to launch a WG.

13:20:24 [AndyS]

... now prefer to incubator (in a CG)

13:21:09 [AndyS]

... if applied to shapes, we'd need more polished input.

13:21:14 [Labra]

Labra has joined #shapes

13:22:02 [AndyS]

... need to deliver REC by June <- PR by April <- CR by February

13:22:12 [AndyS]

... in effect one month.

13:22:48 [AndyS]

... team has reviewed the spec : core clearer, SPARQL less clear.

13:23:06 [AndyS]

... not about whether full is useful. This is a mgt tactic

13:23:46 [AndyS]

.. user feedback on comment list

13:23:51 [AndyS]

... user feedback on comment list

13:25:19 [AndyS]

... my suggestion is drop shex/shacl alignment despite all the work that has been done to align shex and shacl.

13:26:06 [AndyS]

... shex has a CG and has a published spec https://shexspec.github.io/spec

13:26:57 [AndyS]

... if don't get to REC, may change gear to move to CG - open to all - more open on process.

13:27:09 [AndyS]

... mature spec, and come back to W3C.

13:28:16 [Labra]

+present labra

13:28:41 [AndyS]

... WG publishes as "WG Note"s - exports the IP. License allows a fork of the content.

13:30:21 [marqh]

marqh has joined #shapes

13:30:26 [AndyS]

... re: comments. Now there is no LC stage, comments must be handled during WG lifetime. (This is a burden on any and all WGs now)

13:32:26 [kcoyle]

q+

13:32:36 [AndyS]

... holger - can we split the spec?

13:32:43 [Arnaud]

STRAWPOLL: separate Core from SPARQL extension

13:33:59 [AndyS]

andys: how much less work would there be if split ?

13:34:31 [AndyS]

arnaud: less process , less new issues (there are people waiting to comment)

13:34:39 [AndyS]

... we need full test suite

13:35:04 [AndyS]

... sets the bar higher.

13:35:28 [Arnaud]

ack kcoyle

13:35:39 [AndyS]

... team suggestions is driven by making the spec smaller.

13:36:11 [AndyS]

kcoyle: is the issue they too intertwined?

13:37:09 [Dimitris]

q+

13:37:15 [Arnaud]

ack Dimitris

13:38:01 [AndyS]

dimitris: two docs requires some work but possible.

13:39:18 [AndyS]

holger: concerned about the metamodel. Uses same namespace.

13:39:47 [AndyS]

arnaud: namespace should not be a problem. Can add to existing namespaces.

13:40:05 [hknublau]

-1

13:40:07 [Arnaud]

STRAWPOLL: separate Core from SPARQL extension

13:40:07 [AndyS]

.. minor aspect - wanted to be clear.

13:40:10 [ericP]

+1

13:40:10 [AndyS]

... minor aspect - wanted to be clear.

13:40:16 [AndyS]

strawpoll

13:40:17 [Labra]

+1

13:40:33 [kcoyle]

+.9

13:40:35 [TallTed]

+0.5

13:40:37 [Dimitris]

0

13:40:41 [marqh]

-0.5

13:40:48 [pano]

-1

13:40:51 [TallTed]

"separate Core from Extension" is a better phrasing

13:40:58 [ipolikoff]

-1

13:41:26 [AndyS]

[off] irene :: present+ please

13:41:42 [hknublau]

q+

13:41:48 [Arnaud]

ack hknublau

13:42:01 [ericP]

present+ ipolikoff

13:42:41 [AndyS]

holger: more meeting time? There are proposal made, the limitation is meeting time at the moment.

13:42:51 [AndyS]

q+

13:43:30 [AndyS]

arnaud: already doing 2h calls - concerned if people would turn up.

13:44:57 [Arnaud]

ack AndyS

13:45:59 [AndyS]

andys: do more meeting prep on proposals??

13:46:18 [AndyS]

arnaud: have tried this but seems people are time-short.

13:47:49 [AndyS]

... wiki proposal page is good.

13:48:06 [AndyS]

... it is not happen though (not fast enough anyway).

13:49:23 [AndyS]

topic: disposal of proposed issues

13:49:27 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-215, ISSUE-216, ISSUE-217

13:49:35 [kcoyle]

+1

13:49:37 [Dimitris]

+1

13:50:52 [AndyS]

andys: takes time to go full cycle to get confirmation from issue raiser

13:51:07 [ericP]

+1

13:51:51 [AndyS]

arnaud: we need to give reasonable time to confirm - that is enough

13:52:27 [AndyS]

... one way is to use github issues

13:53:09 [AndyS]

... become listed and threaded with no people-work.

13:53:35 [AndyS]

... "close" signals to commenter and they can reopen/comment more.

13:53:38 [hknublau]

That would be risky IMHO. We could get flooded.

13:54:05 [AndyS]

... old way - wiki page - karen has done a lot work to keep that up to date.

13:54:13 [hknublau]

+1

13:54:19 [pano]

+1

13:54:22 [TallTed]

+1

13:54:27 [Labra]

+1

13:54:35 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-215, ISSUE-216, ISSUE-217

13:54:45 [AndyS]

topic: ISSUE-211: Eliminate property constraints

13:54:57 [AndyS]

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints

13:56:06 [AndyS]

arnaud: dimitris has put a proposal togther ; holger is against.

13:57:04 [AndyS]

... ask for brief summaries from editors

13:58:14 [ericP]

Dimitris: i counted and we had 5 or 7k email with an average of about 12/day.

13:58:20 [AndyS]

dimitris: seems people not able to keep up with the email.

13:58:34 [AndyS]

... current design is OOP-style.

13:58:45 [AndyS]

... but RDF is not OOP

13:59:11 [AndyS]

... works for 95% but last 5% is hard -- pfps comments

13:59:28 [AndyS]

... we have two defn (section 2) anyway.

14:00:03 [AndyS]

... for timeline, we need to compromise. A change is a simpler metamodel.

14:00:27 [AndyS]

... precise and better than what we have at the moment.

14:00:36 [AndyS]

... more robust for CR

14:01:20 [kcoyle]

q+

14:01:46 [AndyS]

arnaud: questions on proposal?

14:01:55 [Arnaud]

ack kcoyle

14:02:28 [AndyS]

kcoyle: like idea of moving away from OOP but can't undertand the implications and work load?

14:03:01 [ipolikoff]

+q

14:03:03 [AndyS]

dimitris: section 2 mostly. Remove sh:property. Can keep for compatibility else use sh:shape.

14:03:36 [Arnaud]

ack ipolikoff

14:04:07 [Dimitris]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/att-0053/shape-control.text

14:04:16 [Dimitris]

here is the re-write of the spec from Peter

14:04:34 [AndyS]

ipolikoff: not clear as to benefits

14:05:02 [AndyS]

dimitris: simplifies, so less bugs

14:05:28 [ericP]

it moves us away from the OOP paradigm which is controversial when applied to RDF

14:06:17 [AndyS]

arnaud: benefit is not only about convenience

14:06:50 [AndyS]

ipolikoff: if more things allowed, there is more possibilities to shapes and so more testing etc

14:07:29 [AndyS]

arnaud: there are different interpretations of the proposal

14:08:01 [kcoyle]

q+

14:08:18 [AndyS]

... the proposal addresses the root cause of many current and future issues

14:08:26 [TallTed]

q+

14:08:28 [Arnaud]

ack kcoyle

14:08:33 [AndyS]

... risks other issues arising

14:08:55 [AndyS]

kcoyle: this week is first time OOP has been mentioned

14:09:58 [hknublau]

q+

14:09:59 [AndyS]

ipolikoff: not an implementation restriction

14:10:12 [Arnaud]

ack TallTed

14:10:58 [AndyS]

TallTed: while don't have complete comprehension - does seem to be an improvement

14:11:36 [Arnaud]

ack hknublau

14:11:38 [AndyS]

... users will write all possible things a spec allows. Need to handle even "strange" cases.

14:12:13 [AndyS]

holger: not an OOP design - but can be understood by people with an OO background.

14:12:42 [AndyS]

... 211 looses this way to understand SHACL.

14:13:34 [AndyS]

holger: process issue - stable design for 6months now. Some feedback, some implementation.

14:13:56 [AndyS]

... no feedback suggests this change.

14:14:16 [AndyS]

... high risk to make this change.

14:14:42 [AndyS]

... 5% cases required one sentence to address in current design

14:15:20 [AndyS]

... sh:property changes many existing shapes already written

14:15:37 [AndyS]

... metamodel - had a long discussion already

14:15:57 [AndyS]

... we had an agreement

14:17:07 [AndyS]

... There are differences: shapes can be closed, property constraints can't be.

14:17:52 [AndyS]

... this is undoing that agreement which was already a compromise.

14:19:29 [AndyS]

... implementation impact - performance and complexity

14:20:51 [AndyS]

arnaud: on one point - process - valid concern about time - many new issues is grounds for revisiting to see if there is a better way.

14:21:08 [hknublau]

q+

14:21:09 [Dimitris]

q+

14:21:26 [Arnaud]

ack hknublau

14:22:30 [Arnaud]

ack Dimitris

14:22:34 [Dimitris]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/att-0053/shape-control.text

14:22:49 [AndyS]

holger: another way to explain SHACL ... useful input ... not clear there is simplicity

14:23:11 [AndyS]

... no explanatory prose

14:23:19 [AndyS]

... no examples

14:23:26 [marqh]

q+

14:23:31 [Arnaud]

ack marqh

14:24:16 [AndyS]

marqh: tend towards evolution rather revolution

14:24:41 [AndyS]

... useful input to give a formal description - can we use that material is current spec?

14:25:01 [AndyS]

... need more sense of why this is better at this moment

14:25:37 [AndyS]

arnaud: better to make a decision at this point

14:26:07 [Arnaud]

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-211 adopting a variation of Peter's suggestion as described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0021.html . The new metamodel diagram: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/att-0040/diagram.png . A re-write of the spec from Peter for his original proposal is https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/att-0053/shape-control.text , the proposed variat[CUT]

14:26:14 [hknublau]

-1

14:26:23 [kcoyle]

+1

14:26:27 [Dimitris]

+1

14:26:28 [ericP]

+1

14:26:31 [Labra]

+1

14:26:32 [marqh]

-0.5

14:26:33 [ipolikoff]

-.9

14:26:37 [TallTed]

+0.8

14:26:41 [pano]

-1

14:26:54 [AndyS]

-0.5

14:27:38 [Arnaud]

PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-211 as already discussed (extensively) and too late for such a fundamental change, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0117.html

14:27:46 [hknublau]

+1

14:28:08 [kcoyle]

-0

14:28:13 [ipolikoff]

+1

14:28:19 [ericP]

-.5

14:28:23 [marqh]

0

14:28:26 [AndyS]

0

14:28:35 [Dimitris]

-.5

14:28:36 [TallTed]

-0.5

14:28:38 [pano]

+1

14:28:40 [Labra]

-0.5

14:29:17 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-211 as already discussed (extensively) and too late for such a fundamental change, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0117.html

14:30:06 [AndyS]

topic: issue-197

14:30:27 [AndyS]

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-197:_Defined

14:31:00 [ericP]

scribenick: ericP

14:31:18 [ericP]

hknublau: i agreed with trying to avoid the sense of definition

14:31:32 [ericP]

... but when someone puts a term into an RDF graph, this is at most a declaration

14:32:06 [kcoyle]

q+

14:32:13 [Arnaud]

ack kcoyle

14:32:19 [ericP]

Arnaud: there aren't mamy votes on the associated proposal but hknublau says we can close the issue as is

14:32:22 [kcoyle]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0149.html

14:32:31 [ericP]

kcoyle: i had questions which i don't believe were answered

14:33:11 [ericP]

... i pointed out places where i thought that "define" was being use incorrectly.

14:33:37 [ericP]

... i don't know if those changes got made but there were sentences i didn't understand.

14:33:54 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-197 as resolved by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0130.html

14:34:01 [hknublau]

+1

14:34:10 [ericP]

hknublau: i've followed the spirit of karen's advice; not sure if i responded.

14:34:25 [kcoyle]

+.5 (I'll check later)

14:34:26 [hknublau]

(I will check her email again)

14:34:53 [pano]

+1

14:35:07 [ipolikoff]

+1

14:35:20 [ipolikoff]

have to leave now, sorry

14:35:20 [TallTed]

+1

14:35:37 [Dimitris]

+1

14:35:58 [Labra]

+

14:36:02 [Labra]

+0

14:36:22 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-197 as resolved by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0130.html

14:36:46 [ericP]

issue-209

14:36:46 [trackbot]

issue-209 -- What is a shape -- open

14:36:46 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/209

14:37:01 [ericP]

Arnaud: we've discussed this in different ways.

14:37:14 [Dimitris]

q+

14:37:24 [ericP]

... it keeps popping back up when someone says the doc is not clear on this.

14:37:50 [ericP]

hknublau: we're saying that a shape is a node.

14:38:00 [ericP]

... we're doing the same thing for every other term.

14:38:22 [ericP]

... if we say "a shape is a resource", i.e. that it lives in the real world, we'd have to do that everywhere

14:38:42 [ericP]

... pfps proposed the terminology we use

14:38:58 [ericP]

... shapes can have values while resources cannot

14:39:23 [ericP]

Arnaud: we don't have to wait for pfps to bless our resolutions before closing issues.

14:39:36 [ericP]

... but it's better if we hear some closure

14:39:43 [Arnaud]

ack Dimitris

14:39:53 [ericP]

... he's demonstrated that he'll scream if we don't address his issues

14:40:19 [ericP]

Dimitris: we have to restructure section 2 anyways

14:40:39 [ericP]

... so we need to redefine a shape anyways

14:40:52 [ericP]

hknublau: but that's issue-212, removing focus constraint

14:41:52 [ericP]

Arnaud, should we try to close issue-212 first?

14:42:03 [ericP]

hknublau: won't change anything

14:42:19 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-209 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bec7b6852529acc80954dbc38cf4e435861238a2

14:42:22 [hknublau]

+1

14:43:36 [ericP]

kcoyle: not sure how to vote on this before issue-212

14:44:13 [ericP]

issue-212

14:44:13 [trackbot]

issue-212 -- Property constraints and focus node constraints -- open

14:44:13 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/212

14:44:39 [ericP]

hknublau: we may have made an editorial mistake in introducing "focus node constraint"

14:45:03 [ericP]

... in the old design, we had a sh:constraint property linking a node to a constraint

14:45:24 [ericP]

... we didn't discard focus node constraint

14:45:50 [ericP]

... there's a section on it but it's basically emtpy so it could be merged with shape

14:45:59 [ericP]

... folks just need to be aware that shapes double as constraints

14:46:06 [marqh]

q+

14:46:47 [Arnaud]

ack marqh

14:46:53 [ericP]

kcoyle: apart from getting rid of focus node constraint, i think that shapes should not be constraints

14:47:19 [ericP]

marqh: trying to sift through the doc and haven't found an answer to "what's a focus node?"

14:47:37 [ericP]

kcoyle: maybe in 2.2?

14:47:44 [Arnaud]

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

14:47:58 [ericP]

hknublau: that's the official definition [reads]

14:48:11 [ericP]

... later on we say how it can be derived using targets, etc.

14:48:36 [ericP]

... there's not much more we can say about it; it's basically a random node that is a parameter to validation

14:49:28 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-212 as resolved by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0129.html and replace the term "focus node constraint" with "shape" throughout the document.

14:49:28 [ericP]

marqh: the definition of focus node constraint doesn't jump out at me as clear.

14:49:34 [ericP]

... i support the proposal

14:49:35 [hknublau]

+1

14:49:50 [kcoyle]

-.5

14:49:50 [marqh]

+1

14:49:51 [Dimitris]

-.5

14:49:52 [pano]

+1

14:50:01 [TallTed]

+1

14:50:45 [ericP]

kcoyle: will there be more text added to Shape to cover this?

14:51:17 [marqh]

q+

14:51:22 [ericP]

hknublau: i think we can restructure this section by describing the commonalities, e.g. every constraint has a severity and a message

14:51:35 [Arnaud]

ack marqh

14:52:14 [ericP]

marqh: is it worth opening an issue with the scribed two-line summary?

14:52:50 [ericP]

Arnaud: agreed. maybe in the resolution for issue-209, we can capture hknublau's text

14:53:25 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-212 as resolved by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0129.html and replace the term "focus node constraint" with "shape" throughout the document.

14:53:45 [ericP]

issue-209

14:53:46 [trackbot]

issue-209 -- What is a shape -- open

14:53:46 [trackbot]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/209

14:54:58 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-209 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bec7b6852529acc80954dbc38cf4e435861238a2 plus restructure of Focus node section by describing the commonalities, e.g. every constraint has a severity and a message

14:55:53 [Arnaud]

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-209 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bec7b6852529acc80954dbc38cf4e435861238a2 plus restructure of Focus node and Shapes sections by describing the commonalities, e.g. every constraint has a severity and a message

14:56:13 [hknublau]

+1

14:56:18 [kcoyle]

0

14:56:51 [pano]

+1

14:56:57 [TallTed]

+0.5

14:57:11 [Dimitris]

0

14:57:23 [Labra]

0

14:58:33 [Arnaud]

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-209 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bec7b6852529acc80954dbc38cf4e435861238a2 plus restructure of Focus node and Shapes sections by describing the commonalities, e.g. every constraint has a severity

14:58:37 [ericP]

Arnaud: we can examine the implementation when the editors summarize their edits

15:00:10 [Arnaud]

trackbot, end meeting

15:00:10 [trackbot]

Zakim, list attendees

15:00:10 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been AndyS, hknublau, Arnaud, kcoyle, pano, Dimitris, TallTed, ericP, .9, ipolikoff

15:00:18 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

15:00:18 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/14-shapes-minutes.html trackbot

15:00:19 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, bye

15:00:19 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items