See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: sandro
ipolikof: Next meeting: same time, same place (next week)
<ipolikof> PROPOSED: Approve minutes of the 12 April 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-shapes-minutes.html
<hknublau> +1
<ipolikof> +1
<simonstey> +1
<TallTed> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of the 12 April 2017 Telecon: https://www.w3.org/2017/04/12-shapes-minutes.html
hknublau: Peter's test case,
questions about how to go from here, with more test cases
coming in.
... moving target
... prebinding, especially
... This test case of Peter's:
hknublau: click on
shared-shapes
... go from a node shape to two property shapes
... system will recursively walk into them, and produce
validation results for all of them
... two possibilties
... reach the same focus node from two paths
... either report once, or twice, or we dont care
... two variations of this, one from peter, one from me
<simonstey> +1 for producing a result for each of the propertyshapes
ipolikof: so the spec if unclear about whether the results should be 1 or 2?
hknublau: I don't care which it is, and I don't see the spec saying one way or the other
<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.
ipolikof: Can we say both are valid, to allow more optimization as Peter wants
<simonstey> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#result
TallTed: Seems like the basic results is it failed and the more detailed is where
sandro: Could you have a success with the same ambiguity?
<simonstey> +q
hknublau: no, then there'd be no
validation report
... Could have test result allow either, MFresult1 and
MGresult2
... or we-don-t-care, ...
dimitris: What does your impl return, hknublau?
hknublau: Currently 2, but I could easily change it to 1 by having it rememer
dimitris: Let's wait and see what the various impls report
simonstey: We had a similar
discussion months ago, about the optimization. Where if you
have to report all the results, you can't optimize.
... 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.
... I'm in favor of treating them as independent
ipolikof: Peter wants the impl that reports it once still passes
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.
simonstey: Peter's point is
they're not really identical since they are different blank
nodes.
... Maybe we can go the easy way and says results must be RDF
Grpah Isomorphic after blank node subsitution
ipolikof: I like dimitris's suggestion to see what others report, but can we say both are allowed?
simonstey: If we say both are allowed, we have to figure out how to test that
hknublau: We can have two
results, and say either is a pass
... 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
TallTed: So that's an editorial bug
hknublau: You can do your optimizaiton, but you need to have one mode that produces all the results
ipolikof: "Implementations MAY suppress...."
hknublau: I would want to be clear these always need to be new results
TallTed: As I recall this was the intent
simonstey: But Ted's issue about 400 artificial duplicate results
TallTed: no problem, the good tool will do the blank node subsitution and reduce it to one
hknublau: If you have 400 identical results, they're probably actually slightly different, different focus node or something
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.
... in optimization of tools and UI, that's value add
ipolikof: I'm hearing proposal to fix editorial bug to make it clear each results needs to be present
<ipolikof> PROPOSAL: Fix the editorial bug to clarify that all results must be produced
sandro: that doesn't neeed a new CR
<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.
<hknublau> +1
<simonstey> +1
<ipolikof> +1
<Nicky> +1
<TallTed> +1
jack_, can you see this?
jack_: +1
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.
<jack_> hello
jack_, I just saw 'hello'
<jack_> I just found the window to type in :-)
hknublau, talked to Andy, and there are some changes, makes one of the test cases invalid
scribe: and Peter may find some
nasty corner cases
... this is appendix on Prebinding
... because of SPARQL EXISTS CG, and the change I didn't know
about
... sounds like a normative change, making certain shape graphs
ill-formed
... unfortunate reality
TallTed: Is there any pushback we
can/should do on this change?
... is this change really necessary / permanent
hknublau: They're spec is evolving, whatever we copy is a snapshot
<simonstey> +q
sandro: What's the prognosis for the AT RISK sparql extensdion mechanism?
TallTed: The bar isn't about the math
simonstey: (summarizing)
hknublau: SOme people find corner cases, like embedding minus block
simonstey: Is it only about sparql, or our semantics
hknublau: What's unsatisfactory is being blocked by corner cases
simonstey: I don't want to remove
sparql part; a lot of companies that will use shacl want
this.
... They'll migrate the constraints they already have in sparql
to shacl
... By removing it from normaitve bits, they'd be very
unhappy
ipolikof: Is there way for us to make a general sentence, about some things not being defined
hknublau: That would be ideal, if you can find such a sentence
simonstey: We can't test for all possible sparql constraints
<jack_> my company would be, if I am allowed to say so
understood, jack_
hknublau: We could enumerate the
features that definitiely work, filter graph patters, etc
... and everything else is undefined and left to future work to
define
... that would work for all or almost all our usecases
simonstey: maybe "illformed" is too strong
hknublau: That just means the output is undefined, and it could be allowed in the future
ipoliko: Can we define it precisely
<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.
sandro: I'll have to check if that would need new CR
ipolikof: I like this solution
TallTed: Relying on another W3C spec makes this hard
simonstey: If one of my 1000 shapes uses minus, this would mean the whole validation process is undefined
<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.
simonstey: everything SHOULD abort because of an ill-formed shape
<hknublau> +1
simonstey: can we instead slip
into the result a label that it's undefined
... We want to point out that using those sparql features in
undefined
TallTed: Because SPARQL has issues, we can't say the result
sandro: make this a moving reference to sparql?
hknublau: except prebinding isn't in sparql at all
<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
<hknublau> +1
<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
sandro: Doesn't that proposal mean it will be informed
TallTed: nope
ipolikof: syntax rule will just say it's undefined
<ipolikof> +1
<simonstey> +1
<hknublau> +1
<jack_> +1
<TallTed> +1
+1
<Nicky> +1
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
(failed to scribe discussion of new publication)
<scribe> ACTION: sandro send mail to list about plan to cut off new tests May 25 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Send mail to list about plan to cut off new tests may 25 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2017-04-26].
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.
... The term "supported" datatytpes in SPARQL doesn't
exist
... so we've got an undefined reference
sandro: sure be nice if we can find a list somewhere
ipolikof: If SPARQL spec is unclear, ours ends up being unclear
hknublau: I'll see if Andy has thoughts
TallTed: I see a list, but it doesn't incudes dates
simonstey: Did OWL2 have a list?
sandro: Ask Andy what SPARQL's thinking on this was, what the intended list of supported sts was
hknublau: Okay to make edit it I find solution
ipolikof: yes
... Okay, adjourn!
<ipolikof> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: hknublau, sandro, dimitris, simonstey, Nicky, ipolikof, TallTed Present: hknublau sandro dimitris simonstey Nicky ipolikof TallTed Found Scribe: sandro Inferring ScribeNick: sandro Found Date: 19 Apr 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/04/19-shapes-minutes.html People with action items: mail sandro send[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]