Meeting minutes
Node Expressions
Holger: the goal is to define node expressions and cover the most basic use cases
… there are no change to Core
… The group needs agreement to push to the main branch
Nick: I suggest that it gets resolved in GH
… it would be a new deliverable?
Holger: It does not add a deliverable, it's a PR to add text into Core
Robert: no objection from my side
AlexN: I don't want to hold up this PR nor FPWD publication
Nick: we'll get to the concerns about shacl-shacl elsewhere
AndyS: I asked Ted to re-review because changes were made
… not sure whether it's good that anyone can block a PR
AndyS: I want to see progress to FPWD
Nick: it does not seem that other issues will affect the publication decision
… how many responses to the CfC?
AndyS: are we putting this PR in before publication?
<Zakim> HolgerK, you wanted to say that sh:this is not in this PR and we will likely not use it moving forward.
Holger: all URIs will be treated uniformly, I think AlexN's issue has been resolved
<nicholascar> Following this meeting we will ask all members to re-review as per the CFC due to recent (last week's) changes.
<nicholascar> After FPWDs we will likely move to automatic publication where merged PRs automatically publish
AlexN: do we need to respond to CfC by email?
Nick: yes
sh:shapeClass
Holger: 1 review said it could confuse RDF engines
AlexN: my concern is still there
… there's rdfs:class
… it's a long discussion thread
<simonstey> w3c/
PR 264
Holger: already merged
<AndyS> https://
<AndyS> The changes section of SHACL core
Holger: I think we can have Changes from GH?
Nick: We should just record bigger changes, GH history would include too many small things
Tomasz: I'd like a place to ask questions and have discussions
AndyS: I created an open-ended issue
Nick: things must be actioned in issues, but discussion can happen elsewhere
Bergos: when we open discussion for everything there might be too much noise
Nick: we need to have discipline to avoid non-spec discussions
… we will close issues when it's just discussions
SHACL Inferencing - WG asking on the public list for use cases requirements
AndyS: we need the input from the WG
AlexN: we have a tag for that in GH issues tracker
Consider using W3C WBS (W3C's web based voting and questionaire system) for CfC's
Nick: we can do that for the next time we need a CfC.
Addressing Older Issues
Nick: I think we can close some of those old issues
… I grouped them in the agenda
AlexN: I see low-hanging fruits
… can I self-assign in GH?
Nick: yes
AlexN: volunteers to maintain shacl-shacl
Nick: the document might not be normative
ajnelson-nist: there might be issues with tools/code
… it might be normative
Tomasz: I think it needs a separate process
… someone could refactor and have the same shapes in the end
Eliana: last time we discussed making it a non-normative note
… to be able to maintain without the constraint to make changes
Nick: we can have the model (normative) in a doc and a schema that is not
Eliana: agree with that approach
Nick: the shacl file would be hosted by W3C somewhere
AlexN: @@@
Nick: the CG was active to maintain things before, so we would able to maintain later on
… it can be a phase 2 document as a WG Note