11:48:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #data-shapes
11:48:43 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/07/28-data-shapes-irc
11:48:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #data-shapes
11:49:05 <TallTed> rrsagent, draft minutes
11:49:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/28-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
11:49:08 <TallTed> rrsagent, make logs public
11:50:03 <TallTed> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/agenda/admin/agenda-2025-07-28.md
11:50:05 <agendabot> clear agenda
11:50:05 <agendabot> agenda+ Discussion
11:50:05 <agendabot> agenda+ Process
11:50:43 <TallTed> meeting: Data Shapes Working Group
11:50:45 <TallTed> chair: eliana
11:50:47 <TallTed> present+
11:50:49 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/07/21-data-shapes-minutes.html
11:50:51 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/08/04-data-shapes-minutes.html
11:52:26 <TallTed> clear agenda
11:52:26 <TallTed> agenda+ ValidationReport conformance values - continued from last week
11:52:26 <TallTed> agenda+ Overview document contributors - a call
11:52:27 <TallTed> agenda+ Phase 2 subgroups status
11:55:29 <elianaP> elianaP has joined #data-shapes
11:55:57 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #data-shapes
11:56:19 <TallTed> s/chair: eliana/chair: elianap
11:56:30 <TallTed> agenda?
11:57:24 <HolgerK> HolgerK has joined #data-shapes
11:59:55 <SimonW> SimonW has joined #data-shapes
12:00:00 <DavidHabgood> DavidHabgood has joined #data-shapes
12:01:06 <ajnelson-nist> ajnelson-nist has joined #data-shapes
12:01:17 <ajnelson-nist> present+
12:01:18 <nicholascar> nicholascar has joined #data-shapes
12:01:18 <AndyS> present+
12:01:30 <nicholascar> present+
12:02:10 <caribou> present+
12:02:32 <mgberg> mgberg has joined #data-shapes
12:02:47 <bergos> bergos has joined #data-shapes
12:02:58 <bergos> present+
12:03:13 <SimonW> present+
12:03:42 <edmond> edmond has joined #data-shapes
12:03:50 <HolgerK> present+
12:03:55 <edmond> present+
12:03:56 <DavidHabgood> scribe+
12:03:59 <DavidHabgood> present+
12:04:30 <nicholascar> q+
12:04:30 <elianaP> q?
12:04:48 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: any open questions from last time
12:05:32 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: what would people like to see in overview document; who would like to contribute, do we need further discussion
12:06:19 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: suggest writing shell as starting point
12:06:52 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: there is a minimal draft so far; do we need history of shacl etc. or minimal
12:07:32 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: practical point: list of deliverables on charter or readme, could go into overview doc
12:08:02 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: stubs that we have now should go into the overview document
12:08:14 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: hard to find things in OWL, there is no single overview
12:09:05 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: Holger previously you wrote on SPIN and SHACL, it was a good read, would like SHACL inferencing to go in this direction
12:09:40 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: SPIN rules would iterate until no further data
12:10:01 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: I think it would be a good overview reference
12:10:25 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: SPIN, SHEX, and some historical input from IBM would be needed; not sure if still entirely relevant
12:11:07 <HolgerK> https://spinrdf.org/spin-shacl.html
12:11:16 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: the doc helped me understand gap between OWL inferencing and currently more complex than SHACL inferencing; things that seem to currently require SPARQL construct
12:11:19 <nicholascar> q?
12:11:55 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: would this help people choose between the different techs
12:12:14 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: not sure
12:12:37 <AndyS> q+
12:13:03 <nicholascar> ack nicholascar
12:13:04 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: may be sensible to show awareness of other things e.g. SHEX, an overview doc could potentially have these references
12:13:45 <AndyS> ack me
12:13:45 <DavidHabgood> AndyS: aim rule for inclusion, things required to read, does not need to include history. Can include history in separate note. Test is what is required reading if coming back to SHACL
12:13:56 <bergos> q+
12:14:29 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: a user may be new and want to know which part of SHACL they should use; after basic information
12:14:55 <DavidHabgood> AndyS: overview provides a reading path through documents
12:15:13 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: ideally keep overview short and concise. Keep other details elsewhere
12:16:07 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: I will do SHACL SHACL, core (?) overview
12:16:26 <DavidHabgood> AndyS: other document to be produced is "what is new in 1.2"
12:16:31 <HolgerK> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/draft/preview/7355138151780106241/
12:16:35 <HolgerK> q+
12:17:15 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: what is new even within core as well
12:18:19 <DavidHabgood> bergos: think about the audience, some users in detail, interested in theory.
12:18:38 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: keep part of history in main document?
12:19:04 <DavidHabgood> bergos: depends on length, if long put in separate, shorter can keep in relevant spec
12:19:33 <bergos> ack me
12:20:32 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: as example, background to reasoning systems can go in rules. Other shorter things, that still need to be addressed, could go in overview.
12:20:58 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: linked in article, what is new in SHACL 1.2, plan to publish tomorrow. One example of how the overview could be done
12:21:43 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: on primers, these are important. A lot of feedback is people learning SHACL start with the specs, expect them to be less formal than currently. Too formal/difficult currently.
12:22:13 <ajnelson-nist> q+
12:22:34 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: e.g. in Node Expressions there is "getting started with Node Expressions", which is an informal intro. Would be good to have the same in core/rules/others.
12:23:02 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: hope there is more interest in making the core readable
12:23:33 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: if there are interested people in helping with this please say
12:24:21 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: I will try and assist with this, have similar problems elsewhere, tension between wanting to write formal/correct spec and explanatory content
12:25:51 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: pattern section; sh:or is a recent example. Not a comprehensive rewriting, "informal assistance from experience"
12:26:16 <ajnelson-nist> q-
12:26:25 <HolgerK> ack me
12:27:13 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: should distribute example/explanatory sections among editors; can do this later, just want comprehensive examples at start of spec
12:27:54 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: agree targeting is a tough area for people. There is still scope for someone to assist in editing core
12:28:05 <DavidHabgood> Topic: validation reports and levels
12:28:24 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: revisit this topic from last meeting
12:29:42 <ajnelson-nist> q+
12:29:51 <HolgerK> q+
12:29:53 <nicholascar> q+
12:31:18 <DavidHabgood> bergos: conformance property, a lot of users rely on it, good to keep. A lot of users are used to it, expect a simple property. Do we want it - I think we do, logic behind it.
12:31:49 <ajnelson-nist> ack me
12:31:59 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: also think good to have stored rather than computed. For simplicity, can look at a single result.
12:32:19 <ajnelson-nist> q+
12:32:40 <HolgerK> ack me
12:32:45 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: changed mind; should now keep it, for backwards compatibility. Non strong reason to remove. Ensure meaning is correct. Debug, Trace, should not be violations. Update spec along these lines
12:33:08 <mgberg> q+
12:34:00 <bergos> q+
12:34:05 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: propose adding another property, "conforms level", default is only fail on violation, could set to warn
12:34:21 <AndyS> q+
12:34:27 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: good idea, don't like idea of changing meaning of existing
12:35:12 <AndyS> q+ to ask whether "conforms level" is a feature of the reading the report, not creating?
12:35:20 <nicholascar> q?
12:35:24 <nicholascar> ack me
12:35:34 <nicholascar> ack ajnelson-nist
12:36:35 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: there are a few use cases , explanation/reproduction, e.g. SHACL engine users need to reproduce test results, do end users also need the same. How to inform users on how tests were run, currently use Makefile.
12:36:45 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: we would want to include threshold in reports too
12:37:19 <AndyS> q-
12:37:45 <DavidHabgood> mgberg: custom severity levels, then need to define where in the order it fits so requires sh:order, need to include this in shapes graph
12:38:53 <DavidHabgood> mgberg: can insert them in the order wherever
12:39:24 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: fixed out of the box order; can insert between these e.g. 3.2
12:40:02 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: must it be an ordered list, could it be a set?
12:40:11 <mgberg> ack me
12:40:22 <DavidHabgood> mgberg: don't think it has to be ordered
12:41:16 <ajnelson-nist> q+
12:41:32 <HolgerK> q+
12:42:06 <HolgerK> q-
12:42:22 <ajnelson-nist> q-
12:42:32 <DavidHabgood> bergos: need to be careful with violations, any violation has an impact on the report. Engine setting to choose violation level. Also support order and can include custom ordering. Even if this adds complexity to the spec would help clarify things
12:42:41 <nicholascar> q+
12:43:11 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: suggest option specifying cutoff as numerical value with violations assigned numerical value
12:43:26 <ajnelson-nist> q+
12:43:32 <ajnelson-nist> q-
12:43:49 <DavidHabgood> bergos: engine can then use this numerical value
12:44:38 <bergos> ack me
12:45:00 <HolgerK> q+
12:45:00 <elianaP> q?
12:45:07 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: don't need numerical values necessarily. Must handle current output of violations that are e.g. warning violations
12:45:32 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: so don't need numerical but would it make things simpler
12:45:39 <elianaP> ack nicholascar
12:45:46 <ajnelson-nist> `[] sh:conformanceDisallows (sh:Violation , sh:Warning) .`  ????
12:46:06 <ajnelson-nist> erm, sorry, errant comma.
12:46:41 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: two approaches: instead of numeric ranges, list result types that don't count as violations, this is backwards compatible. Could use additional triples as pointers to these.
12:47:25 <nicholascar> q+
12:47:31 <HolgerK> ack me
12:47:39 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: introduce "informative result" property and store non violating results in a separate property. Definition remains same.
12:49:01 <bergos> q+
12:49:03 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: decide do some or all levels trigger violations, can see all outputs from these in results, assign meaning as users desire. As alternative to numerical ordering.
12:49:07 <nicholascar> ack me
12:49:15 <nicholascar> ack bergos
12:49:31 <ajnelson-nist> q+
12:50:07 <DavidHabgood> bergos: what other use cases are there, to define different threshold that is not ordered?
12:50:39 <ajnelson-nist> ack me
12:50:42 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: deprecation warnings, meaning changes over time, something becomes severe over time due to changes in external context
12:51:23 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: similarly, things I need to fix later, for now make sense as warnings, later can be violations
12:52:35 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: can consider until next meeting, urgent decision not required. Everyone agrees on keeping backwards compatibility. Open topic on ordering/not
12:53:20 <DavidHabgood> elianaP: bergos to create new issue for this topic
12:53:26 <HolgerK> We should just add sh:informativeResult as a new property. This solves the issues IMHO.
12:54:08 <DavidHabgood> Topic: status of subgroups
12:54:24 <ajnelson-nist> HolgerK - Agreed, `sh:informativeResult` might also work.
12:55:03 <DavidHabgood> HolgerK: will merge slower in future. Draft is in good state, stable publicly visible document is there now. Need more reviewers
12:55:46 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: SHACL SHACL nothing further to report,
12:56:03 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: will get PR in for SHACL SHACL, next meeting this time slot this Friday
12:56:50 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: SHACL Profiling: on hold until finished SHACL SHACL document, as dependent on this. Overlap in people on both specs. Few weeks off starting
12:57:41 <DavidHabgood> AndyS: Rules: putting HTML doc together, draft not finished, doing formal part first, then will come back to informal overview
12:58:46 <DavidHabgood> edmond: can discuss scope with those interested, need initial meeting
12:59:22 <DavidHabgood> AndyS: where are we on process for SHACL core, ready for horizontal review?
12:59:33 <caribou> q+
13:00:03 <DavidHabgood> nicholascar: should do informal example before horizontal review. Up to editors to decide if they want this first. Do not want to progress too far with core as may be updates from other specs
13:00:41 <TallTed> q+
13:01:13 <DavidHabgood> caribou: for horizontal review, need "explainer", not quite a primer, related to example. There is an explainer explainer, will be added to minutes.
13:01:27 <caribou> https://github.com/w3ctag/explainer-explainer
13:01:53 <DavidHabgood> TallTed: change in other groups to not have explainer but move it into other documents
13:02:04 <caribou> s,https://github.com/w3ctag/explainer-explainer,https://w3ctag.github.io/explainer-explainer/#introduction,
13:02:39 <DavidHabgood> ajnelson-nist: should the explainer go into overview?
13:02:39 <caribou> Writing Effective Explainers
13:03:49 <DavidHabgood> TallTed: explainer has typically been more than a few paragraphs, less than a full spec
13:04:36 <caribou> RRSAgent, make minutes
13:04:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/28-data-shapes-minutes.html caribou
13:07:10 <DavidHabgood> DavidHabgood has joined #data-shapes
13:07:16 <DavidHabgood> RRSAgent, draft minutes
13:07:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/07/28-data-shapes-minutes.html DavidHabgood