See also: IRC log
<kcoyle> I got "meeting ended" ?
<kcoyle> Ted, what did you do?
<Arnaud> yeah, what was THAT?
<Labra> ** webex meeting has ended for me too?
<Dimitris> me too
<simonstey> he doesn't want to scribe I guess :D
<kcoyle> Eric will have to start it up again - I assume
<hknublau> … back to sleep then :)
<Arnaud> you've got to love webex...
webex is so much better than zakim..... or not
<Arnaud> and now it says the meeting has been canceled
<pfps> web appears to have blipped - that's the first time I've seen this particular brokenness on WebEx
<simonstey> maybe he was trying to get on the call and messed something up
<Arnaud> ok, hold on, I'll give you another number to call then
<Dimitris> i am back in
<Arnaud> are you using the client or calling direct?
<Dimitris> client
<Dimitris> holger, Jose and ted are in as well
<pfps> webex is beginning to look like Zakim, but without any of the features that make Zakim useful
<scribe> scribenick: TallTed
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 24 September Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-shapes-minutes.html
<Arnaud> wait, it happened again??
<pfps> time for alternative measures
<simonstey> yes
<simonstey> :D
<kcoyle> yes
<Arnaud> Tel: 888-426-6840/215-861-6239 Passcode: 406-4254
<Arnaud> More access numbers: https://www.teleconference.att.com/servlet/glbAccess?process=1&accessCode=4064254&accessNumber=2158616239
<kcoyle> back in
<simonstey> me2
webex says " You cannot join this meeting because the meeting host no longer has the privilege to start it. "
Arnaud - is that pure dial-in, i.e., no computer-based voice?
<Arnaud> Ted: yes, it is
<Arnaud> feel free to use skype or similar to call in though
that would be my first skype-to-pots call... no clue how to make that work.
I can dial in, but don't have tele-headset handy, and scribing will be the worse for it.
<Arnaud> you have no phone and no headset?
<Arnaud> how did you call in earlier?
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 24 September Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-shapes-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 24 September Telecon: http://www.w3.org/2015/09/24-shapes-minutes.html
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-93, ISSUE-94, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSUE-97
<hknublau> +1
<kcoyle> +1
<pfps> +1
<Dimitris> +1
<simonstey> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: Open ISSUE-93, ISSUE-94, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSUE-97
Arnaud: has been fighting with new W3 tools and process toward FPWD publication
<Arnaud> issue-77
<trackbot> issue-77 -- Shall sh:pattern also support sh:flags? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/77
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say they're in the SPARQL test suite
[ discussion of regex flags ]
<simonstey> "The regular expression language is defined by XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators and is based on XML Schema Regular Expressions."
<simonstey> sparql refers to http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#regex-syntax
Arnaud: any objections to supporting regex flags?
[ crickets ]
<pfps> not from me - I'm more or less agnostic on this
<simonstey> "Invokes the XPath fn:matches function to match text against a regular expression pattern. The regular expression language is defined in XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators section 7.6.1 Regular Expression Syntax [FUNCOP]." that's what SPARQL says
<Arnaud1> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77, adding support for the same flags as SPARQL
<hknublau> +1
<Labra> +1
+1
<kcoyle> +1
<pfps> +0.5
<Dimitris> +1
<simonstey> +1
<ericP> +1
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-77, adding support for the same flags as SPARQL
<Arnaud1> issue-89
<trackbot> issue-89 -- How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/89
pfps: I don't *see* any problems with treating it the same way as other recursions are treated
<Dimitris> it could be useful for closed shapes
<pfps> the emphasis there was on *see*, as in there might be problems lurking but I haven't noticed them
<Arnaud1> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-89 stating that this is valid, although maybe not very useful, and will be treated consistently with how recursion is defined
<pfps> I don't think that closed shapes have anything to say on this - there are no properties involved so nothing for the current closed shape construct to bite on
+1
<pfps> +1
<Labra> +0.5
<simonstey> +1
<Dimitris> +1
<hknublau> +1
<kcoyle> +1
<ericP> +1
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-89 stating that this is valid, although maybe not very useful, and will be treated consistently with how recursion is defined
ISSUE-90?
<trackbot> ISSUE-90 -- Can the focus node be a literal? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/90
<pfps> it's the addition of inverse property constraints that makes literals useful as focus nodes
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if thiis encourages bad behavior
pfps: this multiplies the importance of exact lexical representations, e.g., `"1"^^xsd:integer` =/= `"1"^^xsd:int`
<pfps> a constraint that a US president must be elected on an election day will fail if the president election date triple uses a different time zone from the election date triple
<pfps> hmm - I don't know if I believe this example - let me think more on this
<simonstey> 5*25
<simonstey> and austria afaik
[ discussion fails to find calamitous bad effects ]
<pfps> given that we are just going along with that the current document says, let's go ahead
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-90, supporting literals as focus nodes
<hknublau> +1
<ericP> -.5
<simonstey> +-0
+1
<pfps> +0.999999999999...
<Labra> -0.5
<kcoyle> +0
<pfps> as far as I know, no changes are required in the document, but there might be some explanatory text added
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-90, supporting literals as focus nodes
<hknublau> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0128.html
<pfps> I am *not* sympathetic with the minor loss of time here
<simonstey> sh:nodeconstraint would work directly on the focus node instead of a property value of that focus node
ISSUE-91?
<trackbot> ISSUE-91 -- Default Cardinality in property constraints -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/91
<pfps> hmm, my comment above may have come out the other way around
<Dimitris> didn't we already close this? https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/59
more useful than the issue link -- http://www.w3.org/2015/07/23-shapes-minutes.html#resolution04
<simonstey> I personally think that 0..* is more intuitive than 1..1
<Dimitris> I agree with simon
<kcoyle> I agree, although we don't have *
<pfps> I also
<pfps> I would propose closing it not as a duplicate, but because any new information didn't change the group's thinking
kcoyle - it seems awkward that we cannot explicitly state the default {0,unbound}
<simonstey> if it's not constrained, you can have as much property values as you like
<pfps> We could regularize this by forbidding min 0
<Dimitris> what if we disallow min = 0
<simonstey> filtershape?
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that most schema languages have a way to assert "*" without ways to assert defaults for every other constraint
<pfps> I agree with Holger that there is no need to have explicit unconstraining versions of all the constructs, such as sh:valueShape, sh:valueShape, sh:maxLength, sh:pattern, etc.
<simonstey> or you put those properties that should be included in the closed shape using sh:ignoredproperties
<pfps> I think that the reason for * is some schema languages is that they treat cardinalities specially - ShEx does this, for example - however, they could just have syntax versions that don't state a maximum cardinality
<pfps> max 0 has a use already
<pfps> min 1 and max 0 is silly but there are lots of silly shapes so why single this one out explicitly
<ericP> i don't think i could
<kcoyle> pfps: why is it silly?
<hknublau> There are already 4 -1 votes.
<Labra> +1 for (1,1)
<pfps> min 1 and max 0 can never happen
<ericP> i also think (1,1) is way more intuitive for users
<pfps> ... so any shape with this as a property constraint will fail on all nodes
<ericP> again, it's how other schema languages do it
<pfps> I find unconstrained to be much more natural
ISSUE-82?
<trackbot> ISSUE-82 -- Shall SHACL Core include support for unique language constraints? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/82
<ericP> i think this is relatively common
hknublau: question is whether to have this as a core feature or leave it to the extensions
<ericP> i'd be in favor of having it in core
<pfps> I would say "leave it out of core" except that it does see use in SKOS so I am ambivalent
<hknublau> sh:uniqueLang = true
<pfps> Didn't Karen just present a motivation for templates?
<simonstey> peter has a valid point here
<pfps> the more that is in the core the more that the core looks like SPARQL!
<kcoyle> breaking up!
<hknublau> noise
<Labra> * noise and music ?
<Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: adding support for unique language constraint
<ericP> +1
<Dimitris> 0+
<kcoyle> +1
+0
<pfps> +0.000.....1
<Labra> +1
<hknublau> -0.5
<ericP> new constraint
<kcoyle> flag looks more intuitive to me
<ericP> that's ok
<pfps> a different kind of syntax for this? that is weird
<Labra> * my skype call has been canceled
<ericP> what's uniqueLang("ab"@en, "ab", 7, _:foo) ?
<pfps> maybe a flag on property constraints isn't a new kind of syntax at all
<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-82, adding support for unique language constraint with sh:uniqueLang
<simonstey_> -0.5
<kcoyle> +1
<pfps> if the syntax is sh:uniqueLang that takes true or false as a new bit of property constraints, that's not new syntax
<pfps> +0
<Dimitris> 0+
<ericP> +.7
+0.5
<hknublau> -.5
<pfps> I would like to hear from Simon
<ericP> +1
<simonstey_> +q
<pfps> my reason for not being negative about this construct is that it does show up in mulitple places - not just SKOS - for example, one might want it on rdfs:comment in many situations
simonstey_: this seemed like a ripe opportunity for the extension mechanism
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-82, adding support for unique language constraint with sh:uniqueLang
<pfps> ok by me
<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting