Re: SHACL is a Candidate Recommendation

Dimitris,

To give a slightly different answer, our exit criteria is to have at least 2 independent implementations that collectively pass all tests (as opposed to each one passing all tests). Of course, it would be best if they all passed all or most of the tests. 

As you know, the current WG charter ends on June 1st, 2017. Because key W3M people are not available until May, we will not hear about the WG charter extension until then. In the meantime, we would like to push as hard as we can to meet the exit criteria before the current charter end date. If we’ll be able to make the date, we will not really need a charter extension - other than the pro-forma one to wrap up everything. 

Hence the push to get things done sooner rather than later. Also, once we got past June, it is a slow holiday period for many which is likely to have an impact.

Irene

> On Apr 12, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> 
> See the General Information section at
> 
>     https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/ <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/ <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 
>>>> at https://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://dbpedia.org/>, http://rdfunit.aksw.org <http://rdfunit.aksw.org/>, http://aligned-project.eu <http://aligned-project.eu/>
>> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas <http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas>
>> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT <http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT>