Re: Call on Wednesday 30th of August at 14:00 CEST

Hi all,

Today’s meeting gave an ACK on this plan for the Shape Template 
extraction algorithm (feature 4) and I’ll start implementing and 
creating a draft spec text for it in PR78. Slides and explanation bellow.

There was also a request for more examples. While implementing this, I 
will come up with more test cases that can serve as examples of expected 
behavior.

The next TREE CG meeting will be dedicated to reviewing the Pull Request 
and looking through these concrete examples and will be held at *27th of 
September at 15:00 CEST *(same link - put this in your schedules 
yourself now)

Kind regards,

Pieter

On 29/08/2023 21:16, Pieter Colpaert wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Tomorrow at 14:00 CEST we meet on this link: 
> https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NDkwMWZlMzMtM2FjZi00MjZhLTlhZTMtNjAwMjU5Yjc3YWVi%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22a72d5a72-25ee-40f0-9bd1-067cb5b770d4%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22074b6191-940e-49de-964e-f2919f3f8501%22%7d
>
> You can find a link to the slides here: 
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13TDYqhyoNTGm0kUPSpgXUfDcbsH_zHK301H2rLk1eQY/edit#slide=id.g2494e1ca6ae_0_0
>
> It provides functionality for: 0) extracting quads with CBD i) 
> dereferencing members without quads in the page itself, ii) 
> dereferencing nodes with quads partially out of the page, iii) 
> extracting member quads from a named graph, iv) extracting by taking 
> hints from shape templates.
>
> I elaborated most on the last case, as i - iii has not triggered a lot 
> of controversy and were most clear. Shape Templates now provides I 
> believe a limited yet powerful set of instructions for more 
> hierarchical entities.
>
> It also provides an answer to questions bellow:
>
>  1. I found a better heuristic to handle sh:or and sh:xone
>
>  2. Internal identifier for the members: concat(collection IRI, focus 
> node IRI)
>
> I did not yet start work on doing proposals for state bookmarks for 
> the purpose of resuming.
>
> I did not yet adapt the pull request, I first want to get an ACK on 
> the meeting!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Pieter
>
> On 22/08/2023 16:18, Pieter Colpaert wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We’re still working on the member extraction algorithm. On Wednesday 
>> the 30th of August we’re continuing the conversation.
>>
>> *Would it be possible to take this one at 14:00 instead of 15:00? 
>> *Please send me a note if this doesn’t work for you and then we leave 
>> it at 15:00.
>>
>> Train of thought for the member extraction algorithm during previous 
>> meeting:
>>
>>  1. Include triples in named graph that equals the tree:member object
>>
>>  2. Using CBD on the tree:member object (starshape + recursive blank 
>> nodes)
>>
>>  3. Somehow use the SHACL shape to go deeper than just the 
>> tree:member object.
>>
>> The difficulty with point 3:
>>
>> How to deal with SHACL conditionals: do we validate the full SHACL 
>> conditional in order to know which of the sh:xone for example is the 
>> one, or do we not validate it, and thus process it as if it’s an AND, 
>> leading to potentially too many HTTP requests done? Trade-off here is 
>> performance (we want to avoid unnecessary HTTP calls) vs. ease for 
>> developers. When choosing the latter, we can of course always 
>> document that using conditionals with TREE collections is not 
>> recommended, but then still it would
>>
>> Further issues:
>>
>>  * How to create an internal identifier for the set of quads that 
>> were extracted
>>
>>  * Standardizing an iterator to indicate how far you processed a 
>> certain tree:Collection or LDES. This is an LDES issue, but Sander 
>> mentioned this could probably be generalized to TREE.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Pieter
>>
>> -- 
>> https://pietercolpaert.be/
>> +32486747122
> -- 
> https://pietercolpaert.be/
> +32486747122

-- 
https://pietercolpaert.be/
+32486747122