Meeting minutes
<nicholascar> No items from last meeting
Anything from last meeting?
[nothing]
Phase 1 ED
Nick: we'll need drafts for our Phase 1 documents
Holger: we have not done much yet to clean them up
… opened issues to clear the respec errors
… no real semantic changes recently
Nick: do you need other people's input?
Holger: Haven't heard from Ashley yet
… I'll inform the other editors
Nick: I'll ping Ashley
<simonstey> w3c/
Carine: we will have to discuss shortnames and then send a Call for consensus by email
Issues/PRs
Nick: we have ~80 issues
… is a board of issues useful?
AlexN: a milestone scheduler could be useful
… editors can own the milestone button
Simon: it seems that there are a lot of unused labels
Nick: I'll check the labels
[discussion about using milestones, or kanban-style board]
AndyS: our issues list is public, I expect issues coming from people outside of the group
… it's not clear what scope and intent of each doc is
… we need to create a shared sense of that
Nick: I propose to try to use that milestone-style ?
[no objection]
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to note that labels can be used for both category (e.g., core, sparql, etc.) and timing (e.g., before FPWD, before CR, before PR), and sortedd/selected by one or both axes at any given moment
Ted: I wanted to note that labels can be used for both category (e.g., core, sparql, etc.) and timing (e.g., before FPWD, before CR, before PR)
Nick: what do you mean by "timing"?
Ted: labels are flexible, could be any
Nick: in future meetings we may refer to specific parts
… I'll give it a go
General business
Nick: can we discuss about shortnames?
we have /TR/shacl
<ajnelson-nist> caribou: "shortname" is what follows TR in the URL
<nicholascar> caribou: we need to to select the parts after /TR/ for all deliverables
<ajnelson-nist> thx nicholascar
<nicholascar> Do we want SHACL Core using just /TR/shacl or something else?
<AndyS> +1 to /TR/shacl is overview
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say that these names are *somewhat* flexible until we publish a CR or PR. caribou would have to jump through extra hoops, if we change our minds later about what we choose now.
<AndyS> "overview" is all docs (phase 1 and phase 2)
<HolgerK> +1 /TR/shacl could be an evolving overview page that links to the current versions, otherwise shacl12-core and shacl12-sparql
<Robert> +1 for home page
<nicholascar> +1 for home page
<ajnelson-nist> +1 for home page
<bergos> +1 for home page
<YoucTagh> +1 for home page
Ted: these names are *somewhat* flexible until we publish a CR or PR. caribou would have to jump through extra hoops, if we change our minds later about
<AndyS> also "shacl-core" redirect to "shacl12-core" : moves to current latest etc.
<HolgerK> RDF 1.2 uses rdf12-concepts
<AndyS> +1 to same format as rdf12-*
<simonstey> +1 to same format as rdf12-*
<nicholascar> shacl1-core...
<nicholascar> shacl12-core...
<VladimirAlexiev> how about Compact, will we call it SHACLC or SHACL-C
<nicholascar> shcal12-cs
<VladimirAlexiev> shacl12-compact
<nicholascar> shacl12-compact-syntax
<nicholascar> shacl-12-inferencing
<ajnelson-nist> +1 to longer "short" names
<simonstey> shacl12-node-expressions
<nicholascar> shacl12-profiling
<Robert> +1 for whole words
<AndyS> currently set to shacl12-inf-rule as per discurrsion
<TallTed> +1 for whole words in general, and I tend to like decimals
<TallTed> https://
<nicholascar> Discussion about w3c/
AlexN: I suggested a graph that looks like it'd be appropriate to provide
… do we need something formal?
AndyS: respec has a feature to include separate documents
… what document would this be related? or a separate document?
AlexN: related to the profiling document
… it's an aid to mix SHACL and OWL into 1 file
Ted: we need to look at the content
Nick: W3C has long term support for things that are in /TR
<ajnelson-nist> +1 to adding test cases
Holger: whenever someone does a PR that has changes, include turtle updated and test case
Holger: [describing node expression discussion]
… if you have input to give to the node expression design, it'd be useful
<simonstey> +1 simple first
Holger: only talking about node expressions, not inferencing rules
Nick: request to the WG to chime in soon
AndyS: Issue 250
… I don't quite understand whether we'll have core published then be able to revise it later
<VladimirAlexiev> I have to go. cheers!
<TallTed> +1 to AndyS' plan
AndyS: we don't want to commit to the final stage, we can leave it in CR for a long time
<AndyS> variables - complex expressions + rules will need it - will write on #250