Re: SHACL is a Candidate Recommendation

See the General Information section at

     https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/

"This Candidate Recommendation is expected to advance to Proposed 
Recommendation no earlier than 09 May 2017."

I hope we can make it no later than that date :)

Holger


On 12/04/2017 23:58, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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/
>     <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/
>>>         <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
>>>     <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
>>>     athttps://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/CRFO2
>>>     <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
>>>     <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