Re: SHACL is a Candidate Recommendation

Apologies if this was discussed already but I missed the last meetings and
didn't see anything on the minutes,
what is the timeline for this?

Thanks,
Dimitris

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> For anyone working on implementations:
>
> The Test Suite is work in progress but I believe the tests that are
> already there do have quite a good coverage. So please take a look and feel
> free to submit (intermediate) implementation reports using the EARL format
> as outlined in the Test Suite document:
>
>     http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/
>
> Note that this includes engines that only return true/false conformance
> instead of the full report - these would still be of interest.
>
> If you feel that certain test cases are missing, please submit or request
> them.
>
> In order for SHACL to proceed to the final stages of the W3C process, we
> need to demonstrate that each feature of SHACL has been implemented by at
> least two independent implementations. No single implementation must
> support all features (although TopBraid's SHACL API does AFAIK).
>
> Please contribute where you can for these important next steps.
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
>
> On 12/04/2017 0:51, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C Candidate Recommendation 11 April
> 2017 This version: https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-shacl-20170411/ Latest
> published version: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
>
>
> Now the real work starts.    :-)
>
> (Seriously, now we need to finish up the test suite and get some
> interoperable implementations, as soon as possible.)
>
> On Peter's formal objections, my summary of the Director's decision
> (apologies for oversimplifying):
>
> 1. Node shapes and property shapes have different features. Details at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/CRFO1.
> On this, the WG took some steps to address the Objection, but stopped
> short of satisfying the objector.  The Director considers the remaining
> substantive issue to be support for Generalized RDF, which he believes
> is important.  As such, he is requiring the Working Group to avoid
> unnecessarily obstructing the use of literals as subjects.  To allow for
> this change to be properly investigated, certain syntactic restrictions
> have been marked At Risk and may be removed during CR.
>
> 2. Require a mode that checks if a shapes graph is ill-formed. Details
> at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/CRFO2.
> On this, the Director agrees that syntax checking of shapes graphs is
> important, but not that it should be a mandatory feature.  As a
> middle-ground solution, the Director required the group to provide a
> shapes graph which can be used to check shapes graphs, where practical
> within the language. This is now included as a normative appendix in the
> specification and will be part of the test suite.
>
> 3. Pre-binding issues are not sufficiently resolved.  Details at https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/CRFO3.
> On this, given that relevant part of the specification is marked At
> Risk, the Director has decided to overrule the objection.  The Director
> hopes the relevant questions can be sufficiently settled by
> implementation experience during CR.  Failing that, the features may be
> moved to a non-Rec-track document.
>
>
> Not perfect, but still good work, folks!
>
>       -- Sandro
>
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT