Re: Quick "last call" before CR for Data Shapes' SHACL

I have sent in a number of comments to the working group, at least one at the
request of the working group.  Some of these comments have received no
response at all from the working group.  Some other of these comments have not
received a complete substantive response from the working group.  For yet some
other of these comments the last response from the working was that an issue
was being opened.  I may be able to find time to determine which of my
comments have not received adequate response but I will almost certainly not
be able to do this until at least the week of 20 March 2017.

I had previously commented that even though I had produced two separate
implementations of a version of SHACL I would not be producing an
implementation of SHACL as it was defined in February 2017.  This comment did
not receive any response from the working group even though I indicated why I
would not be producing an implementation.   The problematic part of SHACL for
my implementation has changed but I do not know whether the changes result in
the possibility of my implementation being compliant with SHACL.

I have found a number of serious problems in the recent versions of the SHACL
document and have sent these in to the working group.  Some of them remain
unaddressed in current version of the SHACL document, including the problems
with syntax checking and pre-binding.  Some of them have resulted in major
changes to the definition of SHACL and to the SHACL document, including the
problems with validation result generation and sibling shapes.  I have not
reviewed all these changes and do not expect to be able to devote much more
time to this review until at least the week of 20 March 2017.  Also having to
determine the status of my comments may push this date back considerably.

There are a number of problems that I have found that need to be fixed before
candidate recommendation.  The most important of these that are as of yet
unaddressed in the SHACL document are the interoperability problems caused by
the failure to require complete syntax checking and the multiple problems with
pre-binding.  The problems with sibling shapes and validation reports also
need to be fixed before candidate recommendation, but I do not know whether
the recent changes to the SHACL document include a complete fix for either of
these problems.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 03/03/2017 11:54 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> The RDF Data Shapes Working Group is nearing the end of its charter and wants
> to do one last quick check to see if there's anything that really MUST be
> fixed before going to Candidate Recommendation.
> 
> New draft published today: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
> 
> As the draft says:
> 
>   * Please provide your *feedback by Friday, 17 March 2017* at the latest. If
>     you need more time than that, please let us know what you need.
>   * If you have made earlier comments that you don't consider as having been
>     addressed, please tell us again.
>   * We are especially interested in plans to implement. Comments simply
>     indicating plans to use this work are also helpful.
>   * You can either submit your feedback as an issue on our GitHub repository
>     <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues> (preferred) or via the public
>     mailing list <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/>.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>       -- Sandro Hawke, W3C, on behalf of the RDF Data Shapes Working Group
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 9 March 2017 17:10:37 UTC