IRC log of shapes on 2017-01-18
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:02:31 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #shapes
- 13:02:31 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-shapes-irc
- 13:02:31 [hknublau]
- trackbot, start meeting
- 13:02:33 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
- 13:02:33 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #shapes
- 13:02:35 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be SHAPES
- 13:02:35 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot
- 13:02:36 [trackbot]
- Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
- 13:02:36 [trackbot]
- Date: 18 January 2017
- 13:02:39 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
- 13:02:42 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be SHAPES
- 13:02:42 [trackbot]
- Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
- 13:02:42 [trackbot]
- Date: 18 January 2017
- 13:02:43 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot
- 13:03:17 [TallTed]
- chair: ipolikoff
- 13:03:27 [hknublau]
- present+
- 13:03:31 [TallTed]
- present+
- 13:03:33 [dallemang]
- dallemang has joined #shapes
- 13:03:38 [ipolikoff]
- present+
- 13:03:39 [dallemang]
- present+
- 13:03:39 [Nicky]
- present+
- 13:03:43 [hknublau]
- scribenick: hknublau
- 13:03:57 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 11 Jan 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-shapes-minutes.html
- 13:04:03 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:04:05 [Nicky]
- +1
- 13:04:09 [AndyS]
- present+ (for a short time)
- 13:04:15 [dallemang]
- 0
- 13:04:26 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 11 Jan 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-shapes-minutes.html
- 13:05:08 [hknublau]
- PROPOSAL: Open ISSUE-218
- 13:05:12 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:05:54 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Open ISSUE-218
- 13:06:21 [ipolikoff]
- +1
- 13:06:23 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:06:29 [Nicky]
- +1
- 13:06:45 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Open ISSUE-218
- 13:08:27 [dallemang]
- Where do we see the draft that Holger is talking about?
- 13:08:40 [hknublau]
- http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
- 13:09:16 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-203 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0112.html
- 13:09:17 [hknublau]
- hknublau: Summary of new edits: better structure, separation of syntax and semantic rules, new metamodel and terminology changes
- 13:10:26 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:10:50 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:10:55 [Nicky]
- obsolete +!
- 13:10:56 [Nicky]
- +1
- 13:11:14 [dallemang]
- +1
- 13:11:43 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-203 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0112.html and obsolete
- 13:13:12 [hknublau]
- topic: ISSUE-68
- 13:13:12 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-68 defining pre-binding using eval(D(G), Replace(PrjMap(X), μ)) as described in https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html
- 13:14:40 [hknublau]
- AndyS: Issue is how to set variables in SPARQL queries.
- 13:15:16 [dallemang]
- +q
- 13:15:25 [pano]
- pano has joined #shapes
- 13:15:34 [hknublau]
- ... EXISTS uses something similar. EXISTS is a FILTER function that checks whether the sub-query using the values from the outside has solutions.
- 13:16:04 [hknublau]
- ... Issues were reported regarding EXISTS (HK: and a CG was created in response).
- 13:16:41 [hknublau]
- ... Proposal consists of three parts (as written down in the linked document)
- 13:16:54 [pano]
- present+
- 13:17:10 [hknublau]
- dallemang: How would it differ from VALUES?
- 13:17:34 [hknublau]
- AndyS: VALUES is just a block of data. It's close to Peter's proposal.
- 13:17:48 [hknublau]
- ... that proposal works for less cases, because values are injected into the top level only.
- 13:18:12 [hknublau]
- ... my approach supports nested features such as UNIONs, close to replacement.
- 13:18:59 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-68 defining pre-binding using eval(D(G), Replace(PrjMap(X), μ)) as described in https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html
- 13:19:05 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:19:07 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:19:09 [dallemang]
- +1
- 13:19:12 [AndyS]
- +1
- 13:19:35 [ipolikoff]
- 0
- 13:19:49 [pano]
- 0
- 13:19:58 [Nicky]
- 0
- 13:21:39 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-68 defining pre-binding using eval(D(G), Replace(PrjMap(X), μ)) as described in https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html
- 13:22:17 [hknublau]
- topic: 170
- 13:22:40 [TallTed]
- s/topic: 170/topic: ISSUE-170/
- 13:22:40 [hknublau]
- I have deleted all uses of EXISTS, so this can be closed.
- 13:22:44 [TallTed]
- issue-170?
- 13:22:44 [trackbot]
- issue-170 -- SPARQL specifies a different reading for exists and blank nodes than needed for SHACL -- open
- 13:22:44 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/170
- 13:22:47 [hknublau]
- * cheers
- 13:22:47 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-170 since EXISTS has been removed, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Jan/0021.html
- 13:22:54 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:22:55 [ipolikoff]
- +1
- 13:22:57 [dallemang]
- +1
- 13:23:00 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:23:02 [pano]
- +1
- 13:23:05 [Nicky]
- +1
- 13:23:18 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-170 since EXISTS has been removed, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2017Jan/0021.html
- 13:23:45 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-204 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0113.html and a number of subsequent edits that make the issue obsolete
- 13:23:58 [dallemang]
- +1
- 13:24:01 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:24:05 [ipolikoff]
- +1
- 13:24:06 [Nicky]
- Obsolete +1
- 13:24:19 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-204 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Nov/0113.html and a number of subsequent edits that make the issue obsolete
- 13:24:42 [pano]
- +1
- 13:24:47 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:24:52 [ipolikoff]
- Discuss ISSUE-181
- 13:25:50 [hknublau]
- ipolikoff: This was brought up by Jose. Proposal there that slightly changes the language.
- 13:26:25 [hknublau]
- ... implementers would have the option to stop
- 13:26:47 [hknublau]
- dallemang: This struck me as the right thing to do when I read the doc.
- 13:27:36 [TallTed]
- https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-181:_partial_validation
- 13:27:36 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-181 adopting proposal 2 in the wiki - engines must be able to return all results
- 13:27:49 [dallemang]
- +1
- 13:27:52 [Nicky]
- +1
- 13:27:56 [pano]
- +1
- 13:27:57 [ipolikoff]
- +1
- 13:27:58 [AndyS]
- +1
- 13:28:03 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:28:04 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:28:17 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-181 adopting proposal 2 in the wiki - engines must be able to return all results
- 13:28:56 [ipolikoff]
- topic: ISSUE-217
- 13:29:05 [TallTed]
- issue-217
- 13:29:05 [trackbot]
- issue-217 -- Further clean up of paths versus predicate -- open
- 13:29:05 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/217
- 13:29:07 [TallTed]
- https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-217:_Path_vs_predicate_clean_up
- 13:30:30 [hknublau]
- Advantages of 1a: Potentially easier to understand for end users Easier to query in cases where we are only interested in property declarations: { ?node sh:predicate ?predicate } versus { ?node sh:path ?path . FILTER isIRI(?path) } Better suitable for sh:Parameter declarations (which do not accept paths) - sh:Parameter is a subclass of sh:PropertyShape. This syntax has been in production for a long time. All examples, tools, tests and tutorials will co[CUT]
- 13:31:07 [dallemang]
- +q
- 13:32:47 [hknublau]
- Advantages of 1b: Potentially cleaner because properties are just a special kind of path Easier to ask "is this node a property constraint?": FILTER EXISTS { ?node sh:path ?any } versus FILTER EXISTS { ?node sh:path|sh:predicate ?any }
- 13:33:39 [hknublau]
- ack dallemang
- 13:33:50 [TallTed]
- q+
- 13:34:07 [hknublau]
- dallemang: Anecdote from provo, it had two ways of doing something.
- 13:34:46 [hknublau]
- ... Some people thought this made the structure annoyingly verbose because you always had to distinguish between the complex structure or the simple structure.
- 13:35:11 [hknublau]
- ... They always wanted the more powerful structure.
- 13:35:47 [ipolikoff]
- ack TallTed
- 13:36:21 [hknublau]
- TallTed: Easier to understand leaves both predicate and path, which may be more confusing.
- 13:37:19 [hknublau]
- ... My preference would be to go with sh:path
- 13:37:52 [hknublau]
- ipolikoff: 1b is delete sh:predicate altogether.
- 13:39:05 [hknublau]
- dallemang: leaning towards 1b
- 13:39:53 [hknublau]
- dallemang: danger of misunderstanding is contained.
- 13:41:22 [ipolikoff]
- STRAWPOLL: proposal 1a and proposal 1b
- 13:41:43 [hknublau]
- 1a) 0.5 1b) -0.5
- 13:41:43 [TallTed]
- s/and/vs/
- 13:41:58 [dallemang]
- 1a) -1 1b) +1
- 13:42:01 [TallTed]
- 1a: -1 1b: +1
- 13:42:03 [AndyS]
- (1a) 0 ; (1b) -0.5
- 13:42:06 [Nicky]
- 1a) 0 1b) 1+
- 13:44:43 [pano]
- 1a) 0.5 1b) 0
- 13:46:02 [Nicky]
- Nicky has joined #shapes
- 13:46:14 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-217 using proposal 1b
- 13:46:39 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:46:47 [hknublau]
- 0
- 13:46:49 [pano]
- 0
- 13:46:53 [ipolikoff]
- 0
- 13:46:59 [Nicky]
- +1
- 13:47:10 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-217 using proposal 1b
- 13:47:45 [ipolikoff]
- topic ISSUE-94
- 13:47:54 [TallTed]
- issue-94?
- 13:47:54 [trackbot]
- issue-94 -- Should RDF syntax requirements be separated from SHACL semantics -- open
- 13:47:54 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/94
- 13:47:55 [TallTed]
- https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-94:_separate_syntax_and_semantics
- 13:48:18 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-94 as obsolete
- 13:48:23 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:48:25 [pano]
- +1
- 13:48:26 [dallemang]
- +1
- 13:48:26 [Nicky]
- +1
- 13:48:27 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:48:28 [ipolikoff]
- +1
- 13:48:46 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-94 as obsolete
- 13:49:12 [ipolikoff]
- Discuss ISSUE-92
- 13:50:10 [hknublau]
- ipolikoff: It's a piece of work to finish, there seems to be nobody who is passionate about this issue
- 13:50:30 [hknublau]
- ... Some use cases would have to be addressed via SPARQL instead of the Core.
- 13:50:47 [hknublau]
- ... Proposal is to close it by deleting sh:partition
- 13:52:32 [hknublau]
- We could theoretically add a flag on the shape, to make each QCR disjoint.
- 13:53:03 [TallTed]
- issue-92?
- 13:53:03 [trackbot]
- issue-92 -- Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? -- open
- 13:53:03 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
- 13:53:04 [TallTed]
- https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-92:_additive_repeated_properties
- 13:53:05 [hknublau]
- ipolikoff: We could put such a flag in (we would cover more use cases), and remove it if it introduces problems in CRs
- 13:53:34 [hknublau]
- ... I have no strong opinion and believe the partition the scenario isn't very important.
- 13:53:48 [hknublau]
- dallemang: I would vote for the path of least resistence.
- 13:54:25 [hknublau]
- ... I don't feel passionate about this either way, i.e. deleting sh:partition is fine.
- 13:55:23 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-92 by adding a flag that will make QCRs disjoined
- 13:56:00 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-92 by adding a flag that will make QCRs disjoined and deleting sh:partition
- 13:56:05 [hknublau]
- +1
- 13:56:06 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:56:10 [TallTed]
- dallemang: +1
- 13:56:10 [ipolikoff]
- +1
- 13:56:11 [pano]
- +1
- 13:56:13 [Nicky]
- +1
- 13:56:30 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-92 by adding a flag that will make QCRs disjoined and deleting sh:partition
- 13:58:56 [ipolikoff]
- topic: ISSUE-202: Remove pre-binding from core
- 13:59:05 [TallTed]
- issue-202?
- 13:59:05 [trackbot]
- issue-202 -- Suggestion to remove pre-binding from core -- open
- 13:59:05 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/202
- 13:59:12 [TallTed]
- https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-202:_Remove_pre-binding_from_core
- 13:59:29 [hknublau]
- hknublau: I think this can be closed because it's handled by edits.
- 13:59:37 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-202 as obsoleted by edit
- 13:59:43 [TallTed]
- +1
- 13:59:46 [pano]
- +1
- 13:59:47 [ipolikoff]
- +1
- 13:59:53 [hknublau]
- +1
- 14:00:12 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-202 as obsoleted by edit
- 14:00:16 [Nicky]
- +1
- 14:01:35 [ipolikoff]
- topic ISSUE-208
- 14:01:37 [TallTed]
- issue-208?
- 14:01:40 [trackbot]
- issue-208 -- $this in aggregations -- open
- 14:01:41 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/208
- 14:01:42 [TallTed]
- https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-208:_.24this
- 14:02:25 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-208 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0027.html
- 14:02:29 [hknublau]
- +1
- 14:02:31 [Nicky]
- +1
- 14:02:51 [ipolikoff]
- PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-208 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0027.html - made obsolete
- 14:02:58 [ipolikoff]
- +1
- 14:03:01 [TallTed]
- +1
- 14:03:07 [pano]
- +1
- 14:03:27 [ipolikoff]
- RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-208 as addressed by https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Nov/0027.html - made obsolete
- 14:03:52 [hknublau]
- ipolikoff: For next meeting we should look at current draft to decide whether it can be the final public working draft.
- 14:04:05 [hknublau]
- ... everyone please review the draft.
- 14:04:19 [TallTed]
- trackbot: end meeting
- 14:04:19 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 14:04:19 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, TallTed, ipolikoff, dallemang, Nicky, (for, a, short, time), pano
- 14:04:27 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 14:04:27 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/18-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
- 14:04:28 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 14:04:28 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items