13:02:42 RRSAgent has joined #shapes 13:02:42 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-irc 13:02:44 RRSAgent, make logs rdf-data-shapes 13:02:44 Zakim has joined #shapes 13:02:46 Zakim, this will be SHAPES 13:02:46 ok, trackbot 13:02:47 Meeting: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Teleconference 13:02:47 Date: 19 April 2017 13:03:20 present+ 13:03:28 present+ 13:03:31 present+ 13:03:39 present+ 13:03:59 present+ 13:04:18 jack_ has joined #shapes 13:04:19 TallTed has joined #shapes 13:04:37 ipolikof has joined #shapes 13:05:05 present+ 13:06:03 present+ 13:06:40 scribe: sandro 13:07:21 ipolikof: Next meeting: same time, same place (next week) 13:07:29 PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 12 April 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-shapes-minutes.html 13:07:35 +1 13:07:38 +1 13:07:41 +1 13:07:54 +1 13:07:57 +1 13:07:57 RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 12 April 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-shapes-minutes.html 13:08:17 topic: test suite 13:08:48 See http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/ 13:08:55 hknublau: Peter's test case, questions about how to go from here, with more test cases coming in. 13:09:02 ... moving target 13:09:08 ... prebinding, especially 13:09:30 ... This test case of Peter's: 13:09:44 https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/core/validation-reports 13:10:21 ... click on shared-shapes 13:10:41 ... go from a node shape to two property shapes 13:10:56 ... system will recursively walk into them, and produce validation results for all of them 13:11:00 ... two possibilties 13:11:06 ... reach the same focus node from two paths 13:11:22 ... either report once, or twice, or we dont care 13:11:37 Nicky_ has joined #shapes 13:11:40 ... two variations of this, one from peter, one from me 13:12:11 +1 for producing a result for each of the propertyshapes 13:12:38 ipolikof: so the spec if unclear about whether the results should be 1 or 2? 13:13:04 hknublau: I don't care which it is, and I don't see the spec saying one way or the other 13:13:35 For every validation result that is produced by a validation process (except those mentioned in the context of conformance checking), the SHACL instance of sh:ValidationReport in the results graph has a value for the property sh:result. 13:13:40 ipolikof: Can we say both are valid, to allow more optimization as Peter wants 13:13:43 https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#result 13:14:00 q+ 13:14:20 TallTed: Seems like the basic results is it failed and the more detailed is where 13:15:00 sandro: Could you have a success with the same ambiguity? 13:15:04 +q 13:15:14 hknublau: no, then there'd be no validation report 13:15:38 hknublau: Could have test result allow either, MFresult1 and MGresult2 13:15:58 ... or we-don-t-care, ... 13:16:19 dimitris: What does your impl return, hknublau? 13:16:40 hknublau: Currently 2, but I could easily change it to 1 by having it rememer 13:16:47 dimitris: Let's wait and see what the various impls report 13:16:56 ack dimitris 13:17:00 ack simonstey 13:17:31 simonstey: We had a similar discussion months ago, about the optimization. Where if you have to report all the results, you can't optimize. 13:18:38 ... I'm in favor of having all-results-reported. I wouldn't want to rule out impls providing all. Making everyone keep track of all paths seems too much. 13:19:03 simonstey: I'm in favor of treating them as independent 13:19:57 ipolikof: Peter wants the impl that reports it once still passes 13:20:48 TallTed: Each failure is identical, these subgraphs, so an efficient reporting engine would combine these as not-distinct. As someone receiving a report, I'm not going to want 400 identical lines. 13:21:11 simonstey: Peter's point is they're not really identical since they are different blank nodes. 13:21:48 simonstey: Maybe we can go the easy way and says results must be RDF Grpah Isomorphic after blank node subsitution 13:22:21 ipolikof: I like dimitris's suggestion to see what others report, but can we say both are allowed? 13:22:27 q? 13:22:46 simonstey: If we say both are allowed, we have to figure out how to test that 13:23:00 hknublau: We can have two results, and say either is a pass 13:23:32 ... In the spec I have this rule about always-needs-to-produce-new-blank-node, but in this case it's wishywashy, it doesn't say they have to be new 13:23:46 TallTed: So that's an editorial bug 13:24:04 hknublau: You can do your optimizaiton, but you need to have one mode that produces all the results 13:24:16 ipolikof: "Implementations MAY suppress...." 13:24:34 hknublau: I would want to be clear these always need to be new results 13:24:45 TallTed: As I recall this was the intent 13:25:05 simonstey: But Ted's issue about 400 artificial duplicate results 13:25:27 TallTed: no problem, the good tool will do the blank node subsitution and reduce it to one 13:25:47 hknublau: If you have 400 identical results, they're probably actually slightly different, different focus node or something 13:26:22 TallTed: We intended to have one result node for each test. So there's an editorial bug that this one doesn't have that bit of text. 13:26:35 ... in optimization of tools and UI, that's value add 13:27:17 ipolikof: I'm hearing proposal to fix editorial bug to make it clear each results needs to be present 13:27:29 PROPOSAL: Fix the editorial bug to clarify that all results must be produced 13:27:30 sandro: that doesn't neeed a new CR 13:28:28 PROPOSAL: Fix the editorial bug to clarify that all results of sh:property must be fresh validation result nodes, then delete the test case with 1 result only. 13:28:36 +1 13:28:38 +1 13:28:45 +1 13:28:49 +1 13:28:50 +1 13:29:22 jack_, can you see this? 13:29:26 jack_: +1 13:29:49 RESOLUTION: Fix the editorial bug to clarify that all results of sh:property must be fresh validation result nodes, then delete the test case with 1 result only. 13:30:09 hello 13:30:11 topic: New test on prebinding 13:30:20 jack_, I just saw 'hello' 13:30:34 I just found the window to type in :-) 13:30:59 hknublau, talked to Andy, and there are some changes, makes one of the test cases invalid 13:31:18 ... and Peter may find some nasty corner cases 13:31:28 ... this is appendix on Prebinding 13:31:40 ... because of SPARQL EXISTS CG, and the change I didn't know about 13:32:17 ... sounds like a normative change, making certain shape graphs ill-formed 13:32:25 ... unfortunate reality 13:32:45 TallTed: Is there any pushback we can/should do on this change? 13:33:00 ... is this change really necessary / permanent 13:33:23 hknublau: They're spec is evolving, whatever we copy is a snapshot 13:34:08 +q 13:34:40 sandro: What's the prognosis for the AT RISK sparql extensdion mechanism? 13:34:48 TallTed: The bar isn't about the math 13:35:24 simonstey: (summarizing) 13:35:38 hknublau: SOme people find corner cases, like embedding minus block 13:36:02 simonstey: Is it only about sparql, or our semantics 13:36:26 hknublau: What's unsatisfactory is being blocked by corner cases 13:36:50 simonstey: I don't want to remove sparql part; a lot of companies that will use shacl want this. 13:37:04 simonstey: They'll migrate the constraints they already have in sparql to shacl 13:37:23 simonstey: By removing it from normaitve bits, they'd be very unhappy 13:37:47 ipolikof: Is there way for us to make a general sentence, about some things not being defined 13:38:00 hknublau: That would be ideal, if you can find such a sentence 13:38:13 simonstey: We can't test for all possible sparql constraints 13:38:18 my company would be, if I am allowed to say so 13:38:56 understood, jack_ 13:39:34 hknublau: We could enumerate the features that definitiely work, filter graph patters, etc 13:39:56 .. and everything else is undefined and left to future work to define 13:40:11 ... that would work for all or almost all our usecases 13:40:20 simonstey: maybe "illformed" is too strong 13:40:40 hknublau: That just means the output is undefined, and it could be allowed in the future 13:40:56 ipoliko: Can we define it precisely 13:41:21 https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#ill-formed-shape-graphs 13:41:33 If the shapes graph contains ill-formed nodes, then the result of the validation process is undefined. A SHACL processor SHOULD produce a failure in this case. 13:41:42 sandro: I'll have to check if that would need new CR 13:41:49 ipolikof: I like this solution 13:42:19 TallTed: Relying on another W3C spec makes this hard 13:44:27 simonstey: If one of my 1000 shapes uses minus, this would mean the whole validation process is undefined 13:44:39 PROPOSAL: Add a syntax rule making SPARQL queries ill-formed (or undefined) that use certain features outside of {BGP, FILTER, GRAPH, UNION, etc} excluding difficult cases like VALUES, MINUS. 13:44:45 ... everything SHOULD abort because of an ill-formed shape 13:45:09 +1 13:45:20 ... can we instead slip into the result a label that it's undefined 13:46:23 simonstey: We want to point out that using those sparql features in undefined 13:46:43 TallTed: Because SPARQL has issues, we can't say the result 13:48:04 sandro: make this a moving reference to sparql? 13:48:20 hknublau: except prebinding isn't in sparql at all 13:48:25 PROPOSAL: Add a syntax rule making SPARQL queries that use certain features outside of {BGP, FILTER, GRAPH, UNION, etc} excluding difficult cases like VALUES, MINUS undefined 13:49:03 +1 13:49:04 PROPOSAL: Add a syntax rule making SPARQL queries that use certain features outside of {BGP, FILTER, GRAPH, UNION, etc} undefined, excluding difficult cases like VALUES, MINUS 13:49:23 sandro: Doesn't that proposal mean it will be informed 13:49:31 TallTed: nope 13:49:50 ipolikof: syntax rule will just say it's undefined 13:49:55 +1 13:49:56 +1 13:49:59 +1 13:50:00 +1 13:50:01 +1 13:50:03 +1 13:50:29 +1 13:50:31 RESOLUTION: Add a syntax rule making SPARQL queries that use certain features outside of {BGP, FILTER, GRAPH, UNION, etc} undefined, excluding difficult cases like VALUES, MINUS 13:58:45 (failed to scribe discussion of new publication) 13:59:11 action: sandro send mail to list about plan to cut off new tests May 25 13:59:12 Created ACTION-49 - Send mail to list about plan to cut off new tests may 25 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2017-04-26]. 13:59:21 https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#DatatypeConstraintComponent 13:59:28 topic: definition of sh:datatype 14:00:15 hknublau: Currently says for datatypes supporte by sp 1.1, impl has to do extra test, BUT this datatypes support by sp 1.1 is not very specific. It's theoretically possible someone might find it ambiguous. 14:01:10 hknublau: The term "supported" datatytpes in SPARQL doesn't exist 14:01:21 ... so we've got an undefined reference 14:01:40 sandro: sure be nice if we can find a list somewhere 14:02:14 https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#operandDataTypes 14:02:20 ipolikof: If SPARQL spec is unclear, ours ends up being unclear 14:02:35 hknublau: I'll see if Andy has thoughts 14:02:58 TallTed: I see a list, but it doesn't incudes dates 14:03:07 simonstey: Did OWL2 have a list? 14:03:20 https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Datatype_Maps 14:04:06 sandro: Ask Andy what SPARQL's thinking on this was, what the intended list of supported sts was 14:04:24 hknublau: Okay to make edit it I find solution 14:04:28 ipolikof: yes 14:04:44 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:04:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html ipolikof 14:04:45 ipolikof: Okay, adjourn! 14:04:56 RRSAgent, make minutes public 14:04:56 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', sandro. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:05:06 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:05:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html TallTed 14:05:06 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:05:16 Zakim, make logs public 14:05:16 I don't understand 'make logs public', sandro 14:06:02 chair: ipolikof 14:06:08 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:06:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html sandro 14:06:21 trackbot, end meeting 14:06:21 Zakim, list attendees 14:06:21 As of this point the attendees have been hknublau, sandro, dimitris, simonstey, Nicky, ipolikof, TallTed 14:06:29 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 14:06:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html trackbot 14:06:30 RRSAgent, bye 14:06:30 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-actions.rdf : 14:06:30 ACTION: sandro send mail to list about plan to cut off new tests May 25 [1] 14:06:30 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-irc#T13-59-11