Re: core remaining issues

> On Jan 6, 2017, at 2:21 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> 170 - SPARQL specifies a different reading for exists and blank nodes than needed for SHACL <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/170>
> 


As per https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0047.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Dec/0047.html>, at this point, SPARQ CG came up with two proposals for addressing Issue 170 and is awaiting input from us as to which approach best satisfies our requirements.

With this, I believe the action item for the working group is to pick one of the proposals and go with it. Andy, is this correct?

My vote is for proposal B as described in https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html#an-alternative-to-substitution <https://w3c.github.io/sparql-exists/docs/sparql-exists.html#an-alternative-to-substitution>


> proposal: Move sections 5 & 6 into a separate document and target it for REC track as well.
> (this is orthogonal to making sections 7+ non-normative)
> 
> Agenda item: discuss the addition of a new editor to help
> 
> comment: Ted and Andy suggested that the editors decide based on what is easier. Splitting will require more work for sure but imo, the sooner we do the splitting the more time we will have to make both documents in a good shape
> 
> B) Metamodel
> Issue 211 is re-opened and the sooner this is resolved the better.
> Proposal B1: Adopt a variation of Peter's suggestion as described here: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints>
> Proposal B2: Accept peter's proposal as is (without my variation)
> 
> wrt (B2), one of the main reasons of my variation was to keep the UI related properties for property-related shapes/constraints.
> However, a recent comment indicates that there are use cases for using them with focus node constraints as well https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Jan/0000.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Jan/0000.html>
> both have a +1 from me but I would now favour B2 over B1
> 

These two are indeed the heavy hitters. Since consensus at the last meeting was that there is not enough time between now and the end of January to implement such major changes and meet the current CR deadline, these issues would be resolved differently with and without a WG extension.  Ted and I brought up the need for these urgent decisions to W3C directors and requested a call with them to get their advice on the assumptions we should make about our timeline. This e-mail went out last night. It would be great if we got a definitive answer before the next meeting, but we don’t know if this will happen.

In the meantime, at least sections 7-9 could be moved out into a working group note. I expect that the pre-requisite to doing this is to review the branch Holger has for the recent updates he made to simplify the spec and make a decision about merging it to the master. It sounds like a substantive change and removal of sections 7 - 9 is a major change as well, so I am guessing it would be counter productive to be maintaining these updates in parallel.

Irene