IRC log of shapes on 2017-03-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:00:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #shapes
12:00:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-shapes-irc
12:00:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes
12:00:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #shapes
12:00:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SHAPES
12:00:47 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
12:00:48 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference
12:00:48 [trackbot]
Date: 29 March 2017
12:00:52 [sandro]
present+
12:01:25 [simonstey]
present+
12:01:26 [hknublau]
present+
12:01:38 [ipolikof]
ipolikof has joined #shapes
12:01:40 [Dimitris]
Dimitris has joined #shapes
12:01:50 [ipolikof]
present+
12:02:53 [TallTed]
present+
12:03:06 [Dimitris]
present+
12:03:34 [dallemang]
present+
12:04:51 [TallTed]
chair: TallTed
12:05:14 [TallTed]
scribenick: ipolikof
12:05:32 [TallTed]
TOPIC: Admin
12:05:34 [TallTed]
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 22 Mar 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/03/22-shapes-minutes.html
12:05:40 [Nicky]
Nicky has joined #shapes
12:05:42 [ipolikof]
+1
12:05:58 [simonstey]
+1
12:06:02 [TallTed]
+1
12:06:03 [sandro]
+1
12:06:12 [hknublau]
+1
12:06:16 [TallTed]
RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the 22 Mar 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/03/22-shapes-minutes.html
12:06:47 [sandro]
dallemang: regrets for next week
12:07:07 [TallTed]
next call to be Wednesday 2017.04.05, advance regrets from dallemang and dimitris
12:07:13 [ipolikof]
Dimitris: regrets for next week
12:07:51 [TallTed]
TOPIC: public comments
12:09:56 [sandro]
discussing thread https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Mar/0068.html
12:12:03 [ipolikof]
Peter has not replied yet
12:12:37 [ipolikof]
@sandro: there are 2 possible outcomes for this objection: overruled or talk more to Peter
12:13:00 [ipolikof]
@sandro: nothing else we can do about it before the meeting
12:13:07 [sandro]
(or some other instructions about what we're supposed to do, but I dunno what)
12:13:29 [TallTed]
s/@sandro/sandro/
12:13:35 [TallTed]
s/@sandro/sandro/
12:14:18 [TallTed]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Mar/0078.html
12:14:47 [ipolikof]
dallemang: hear a lot of confusion from FIBO about SHACL vs ShEx, don't know what to say
12:17:39 [ipolikof]
sandro: as a user I would want to see what difference is in the tool support, how both look like, what can I do in one vs the other
12:18:07 [TallTed]
regrets: Pano
12:18:16 [ipolikof]
dallemang: the question I asked was about support, which one is better for FIBO and politics
12:19:18 [ipolikof]
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/SHACL-ShEx-Comparison
12:20:40 [ipolikof]
sandro: Is ShEx about medical informatics and this is the difference we can tell people?
12:21:14 [ipolikof]
no, not really
12:24:16 [Dimitris]
q+
12:25:14 [ipolikof]
Dimitris: should there be a joint statement
12:26:58 [ipolikof]
TallTed: Yes, a joint statement would be good. Timing of the announcement is questionable
12:27:31 [ipolikof]
sandro: can we have friendly competition
12:28:25 [dallemang]
q+
12:28:40 [ipolikof]
hknublau: it is hard to compare, SHACL is going through W3C standard and rigorous review, ShEx is in a more flexible situation
12:28:51 [sandro]
q?
12:30:02 [TallTed]
ack Dimitris
12:31:07 [ipolikof]
Dimitris: I can try to work with the ShEx CG on a joint statement
12:31:38 [ipolikof]
TallTed: We need a technical co-presentation
12:32:23 [dallemang]
q+
12:34:36 [sandro]
q+
12:34:50 [ipolikof]
there are some differences in capabilities if we compare SHACL Core and ShEx without callouts to Semantic Actions, otherwise both languages are as said "infinite"
12:35:32 [Dimitris]
q+
12:35:37 [ipolikof]
dallemang: if SHACL included rules capability from SPIN, then the comparing would have been clear cut
12:35:47 [sandro]
(Possible) Outline of Comparison
12:35:47 [sandro]
* List of Implementations (with statements about future plans)
12:35:47 [sandro]
* List of Other Endorsements (with statements about future plans)
12:35:47 [sandro]
* One Example (a Hello World) in both
12:35:47 [sandro]
* Examples that show differences
12:38:57 [sandro]
(screenshots of tools count like syntax, too)
12:39:04 [simonstey]
q+
12:39:12 [sandro]
(I'm expecting most people will make up their mind before the detailed exampls)
12:39:17 [TallTed]
ack dallemang
12:39:24 [TallTed]
ack sandro
12:40:06 [sandro]
Dimitris: private google document, with comments
12:40:16 [sandro]
+1
12:41:00 [ipolikof]
Dimitris: once there are no more comments, it is endorsed by both groups
12:41:31 [ipolikof]
TallTed: seems like a good idea, I hesitate about using Google doc
12:42:07 [ipolikof]
sandro: we could use W3C wiki, although it is not as nice as Google doc for comments, but at least everyone is authenticated
12:42:31 [TallTed]
ack Dimitris
12:42:38 [TallTed]
ack simonstey
12:42:53 [ipolikof]
TallTed: yes, W3C wiki is a better way to go
12:43:45 [ipolikof]
simonstey: for us at Siemens the most important point was that SHACL would be a W3C standard as opposed to a community effort
12:44:14 [ipolikof]
simonstey: PollParty is in a process of implementing SHACL
12:44:44 [sandro]
PoolParty
12:44:49 [TallTed]
s/PollParty/PoolParty
12:46:03 [simonstey]
odrl -> poe
12:46:25 [ipolikof]
sandro: It is possible for ShEx to become a working group
12:48:39 [ipolikof]
sandro: The first point in the comparison could be "is it a standard"?
12:49:28 [sandro]
sandro: And to get through the W3C process quickly, if they've already done all the work
12:53:11 [ipolikof]
sandro: Tim will be acting as a director which is very unusual. Normally he delegates
12:54:18 [ipolikof]
sandro: Tim made an implementation over the weekend, he could ask very technical questions
12:56:18 [TallTed]
TOPIC: Test Suite
12:56:24 [simonstey]
+q
12:56:28 [ipolikof]
Is it worthwhile having Andy on standby to answer SPARQL EXISTS questions?
12:56:47 [ipolikof]
TallTed: yes, this would be great
12:57:22 [simonstey]
-q
12:57:33 [ipolikof]
hknublau: made some namespace changes to the test suite, added test cases, they are in a folder marked as proposed
12:57:54 [simonstey]
+q
12:58:42 [ipolikof]
simonstey: we are too restrictive in declaring conformance
12:58:46 [simonstey]
https://github.com/shexSpec/shexTest#validation
13:00:42 [ipolikof]
simonstey: there are different levels of conformance in ShEx. The simplest one is just pass/fail - logic conformance. There is an experimental part on comparing details of result. Can we go the same way and just go with logic conformance?
13:01:56 [ipolikof]
I would be in favor of this
13:03:12 [ipolikof]
TallTed: Good and useful observation. It allows for differentiation between implementations
13:03:35 [sandro]
q?
13:04:00 [TallTed]
ack
13:04:08 [TallTed]
ack simonstey
13:04:23 [ipolikof]
sandro: are you suggesting a change to specification?
13:04:47 [ipolikof]
sandro: or is it only about a test suite?
13:06:34 [ipolikof]
simonstey: test suite currently checks graph isomorphism, I suggest that we only do boolean yes/no comparison for the test suite without changing the spec
13:07:49 [simonstey]
http://shexspec.github.io/shexTest/reports/
13:08:37 [ipolikof]
sandro: may be the simplest thing to do is to say when you reporting results to us distinguish between a) yes, we were able to implement this constraint and correctly check it for pass/fail b) we were able to produce a correct full validation result
13:10:15 [ipolikof]
simonstey: yes, I am trying to avoid issues that may be raised about graph isomorphism being insufficient
13:11:06 [ipolikof]
sandro: validation report results may be checked by hand and not only in an automated way
13:13:26 [simonstey]
http://shexspec.github.io/shexTest/reports/
13:13:48 [sandro]
sandro: Maybe say "automated check LIKELY ALIGNS with the correct answer, but SHOULD be checked by hand"
13:14:05 [ipolikof]
sandro: if your result is doing graph isomorphism check with this result, your result is highly likely to be correct
13:14:06 [sandro]
(to address Peter's corner cases)
13:15:43 [ipolikof]
TallTed: we may have raised the bar too high in requiring results
13:16:22 [simonstey]
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#validation-report
13:17:33 [dallemang]
I got an interrupt that I need to take care of. I need to leave the meeting at this time.
13:18:22 [ipolikof]
TallTed, can we flip the requirement and say that yes/no is enough to conform?
13:19:37 [ipolikof]
sandro: it is too late in the process, but it is better do it now than later. It would not help us with the test suite, we still need to test the feature if it exists. But it could help us to get more conforming implementations
13:20:37 [ipolikof]
s/TallTed,/TallTed:
13:21:36 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:21:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
13:21:41 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:22:09 [simonstey]
+1
13:22:26 [ipolikof]
sandro: For each test, give us pass/fail and also full results. We will be initially manually checking validation results to see if they converge
13:22:59 [sandro]
not "pass/fail" but "shape-match" or "shape-not-match" -- distinction matters for Negative and Positive tests
13:23:32 [ipolikof]
hknublau: makes sense
13:26:02 [sandro]
talking about https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite/tests
13:26:12 [ipolikof]
hknublau: explains folder structure for tests
13:27:16 [ipolikof]
sandro: makes sense to remove /dash level of the hierarchy
13:29:20 [sandro]
Looking at https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/dash/core/complex/personexample.ttl
13:29:24 [simonstey]
https://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ ?
13:31:44 [sandro]
focus: sh:focusNode ex:Alice ;
13:32:03 [sandro]
mf:action [
13:32:03 [sandro]
sht:dataGraph <> ;
13:32:03 [sandro]
sht:shapesGraph <> ;
13:32:04 [sandro]
] ;
13:32:55 [ipolikof]
sandro: have we said how people should submit test results?
13:33:16 [sandro]
https://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out
13:33:51 [ipolikof]
hknublau: yes, but we need to do it in a more formal, machine readable way
13:33:57 [sandro]
http://shexspec.github.io/shexTest/reports/
13:37:15 [ipolikof]
sandro: how people submit things e.g., e-mail, link to the data and who and how will do the formating of results
13:37:55 [ipolikof]
sandro: Tim may submit test results
13:38:31 [ipolikof]
sandro: the simplest thing is a pull request for your EARL data
13:38:37 [sandro]
I guess pull-request on your earl output + your validation resuts
13:38:57 [sandro]
directory of implemantion reports
13:39:10 [simonstey]
sounds reasonable
13:39:42 [ipolikof]
sandro: you could start doing it for yourself and then people will see it as an example to follow
13:40:02 [ipolikof]
hknublau: we first need to decide on the tests
13:40:44 [ipolikof]
sandro: we can have proposed and approved tests, first everything is proposed, then later decide which ones to approve
13:41:42 [ipolikof]
sandro: could we automatically import some of the ShEx tests?
13:42:52 [ipolikof]
hknublau: I would be nervous about this
13:43:42 [ipolikof]
hknublau: it is easy to create test cases, if some tests are missing, I would like to hear about theme
13:44:14 [ipolikof]
simonstey: one test case for each property path
13:46:23 [ipolikof]
hknublau: created a Wikipedia page, but got a "you are too biased" comment
13:47:02 [simonstey]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHACL
13:48:55 [ipolikof]
TallTed: citations to other pages help - like articles that point to the spec
13:49:55 [TallTed]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:49:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
13:50:26 [TallTed]
trackbot, end meeting
13:50:26 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
13:50:26 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been sandro, simonstey, hknublau, ipolikof, TallTed, Dimitris, dallemang
13:50:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
13:50:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/29-shapes-minutes.html trackbot
13:50:35 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
13:50:35 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items