12:31:10 RRSAgent has joined #poe 12:31:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-poe-irc 12:31:26 present+ 12:31:27 michaelS has joined #poe 12:31:32 present+ 12:31:36 zakim, who's here? 12:31:36 Present: simonstey, renato 12:31:38 On IRC I see michaelS, RRSAgent, Zakim, renato, simonstey, victor, ivan, trackbot 12:31:45 present+ victor 12:32:32 present+ 12:37:54 benws_ has joined #poe 12:38:01 present+ 12:38:11 Sorry - having problems dialing in 12:40:46 ben: US Toll Number: +1-617-324-0000 12:41:05 Access code:645 923 279 12:43:29 lindab_ has joined #poe 12:43:34 present+ 12:44:10 hi 12:44:24 hello :-) 12:45:14 not in the US in Canada:-) It used to be somewhat the same but no longer:-) 12:45:25 oh! I see :) 12:45:30 Better place to be ;-) 12:45:43 I'm in Toronto - the Beach - it's the name of the community 12:46:20 Better place politically but not so much buying power:-( 12:46:56 You have justin trudeau :-) 12:47:15 Back to POE:-) 12:52:03 scribe: victor 12:52:18 topic: test cases 12:53:46 benws_: Wasn't this what we had? Two ideas (1) The validator verifies the OWL validity and the RDF Shapes (2) The evaluator determines the active rules 12:54:26 michaelS: duties, remedies and consequences are not checked (see section 2.6.8) 12:54:58 victor: as a reminder, see the tables at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vej4EwEZjUM2yYJwBggJxHlSTCinyuMPCulKIeHNTA0/edit#gid=421997599 12:55:46 s/OWL validity and the RDF Shapes/syntactic validity, i.e. compliance with the IM/ 12:55:50 michaelS: if you have the permission you have to check if the rule is active, and then, after, the duties. (The constraints are already verified in the first stop) 12:56:04 https://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#rule-active 12:56:27 michaelS: we were unsure about that, happy to discuss with you now that 12:58:33 simonstey: indeed, you can change the order and verify the duties first. But perhaps you discover later that the constraints were not been valid. 12:58:56 benws_: I agree with everything, but perhaps these details are not necessary in the spec 12:59:58 lindab_: can you please provide an example? 13:00:42 q+ 13:00:44 benws_: let us consider a complex case with several duties and consequences. If I check first that the duties are not satisfied for a rule triggering others, then I do not need to evaluate the entire chain. 13:01:44 q+ 13:02:14 ack simonstey 13:03:58 q- 13:04:46 victor: verfiying if a duty is fulfilled is making an observation. Sometimes making this observation is not "free". In this case, for a particular implementor, the order of the verifications (constraints/duty vs duty/constraints) may have an impact. If we are neutral wrt, everybody will be happy 13:05:39 https://github.com/simonstey/ODRL-SHACL-Shapes 13:06:00 https://github.com/simonstey/ODRL-SHACL-Shapes/wiki/3.1.4-Agreement 13:06:49 simonstey: please see the wiki above to see some validations 13:07:15 simonstey: the validator would have to be able to identify that invalid examples listed in the wiki are actually invalid 13:07:39 ODRL Features: https://github.com/w3c/poe/blob/gh-pages/test/cr-exit.md 13:08:38 simonstey: being exhaustive with the shapes and digging in the text is tedious 13:08:46 we lost u ben! 13:08:53 call droped 13:08:53 benws_: I face the same situation with the evaluation 13:10:00 Ben, do you read us at least? 13:10:34 renato: I remind the deadline is September 11th 13:12:50 q+ 13:13:42 michaelS: must I implement a RDF shapes processor? or can I use other implementations leading to the same result? 13:13:51 simonstey: you are absolutely free 13:15:58 ack victor 13:16:27 XML is informative 13:16:58 that's what we are trying to figure out .:) 13:17:23 victor: (1) can I ignore XML 13:17:26 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:17:26 others: yes 13:18:31 victor: (2) how shall we verify that implementations are conformant? 13:18:48 benws_: there must be a report (with a given format, like SHACL) 13:18:59 simonstey: we have not time for that 13:19:14 simonstey: there is no standard on how the implementation report should look like 13:21:02 simonstey: fancy systems are probably intended for specs with hundreds of implementors 13:22:10 benws_: who else will help to extract contraints? 13:22:16 victor: +1 13:22:20 michaelS: +1 13:22:51 michaelS: how is materialized the help? 13:23:14 simonstey: text describing constraints (like cardinality etc.) 13:23:35 victor: Ideally I would be happy to have an example and a counterexample 13:27:51 benws_: the examples in the IM must be updated with the new refinements, I hope that by Monday they are all correct and agreed 13:29:16 renato: I will work in the evaluator, I hope to have something by Monday 13:31:02 simonstey: examples 1 and 2 for the constraints are faulty, the id is wrong for the json-ld 13:31:54 victor: not having yet the full set of shapes and validations; and with the evaluation part also under constraction, please indulge if the implementation I present next week does not fully work 13:34:48 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:34:57 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:34:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-poe-minutes.html renato 13:35:15 michaelS: work split: victor will look from from policy to action, whereas michael constraints and rules 13:36:05 RRSAgent, draft minutes 13:36:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/31-poe-minutes.html victor 14:06:09 ivan has joined #poe 14:18:45 ivan_ has joined #poe 15:17:49 ivan has joined #poe 15:31:59 Zakim has left #poe