IRC log of shapes on 2017-04-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

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