Meeting minutes
elianaP: nick is not joining today
<TallTed> we might want to consider a restructuring of the agenda page, such that agendabot better handles the subtopics
elianaP: I'll look into it
TallTed: don't know the exact syntax the bot likes
<TallTed> could also tweak the URL in the Agenda, to go directly to the `agenda` branch
Phase 1 deliverables
elianaP: horizontal reviews still need to be initiated
TF updates
elianaP: Holger is not online
… any other updates?
… SHACL profiling?
YoucTagh: a few of us met, we gave an update on what we are proposing
… two subsections, one using owl:imports, and another one with isDefined
… we want to introduce another property similar to sh:deactivate like "exclude"
… which would be different from deactivate (primarily as to not interfere with the existing semantics
elianaP: I also see a note from nick on the agenda -> more ideas about packaging etc. would be appreciated
… if anyone wants to contribute
edmond: In last week's meeting, there was a new proposal on how UI widget scoring can be implemented, it's a new proposal.
… It's still fairly new, so I think this week's meeting will still be discussing it.
… There's a new GitHub issue separate to this, around property roles.
… There is a GitHub issue there now, but we might think about how else this can be used, and then propose whether it should be added to core, or something else.
AndyS: we had a meeting last week
… the SHACL rules TF that is
… in general, we have to consider/think about what the best ways to get material out would be
… REC route is a bit limited because once it's out, you can't really update it anymore without a dedicated WG
<TallTed> "Best Practices" and the like seem better suited to Community Group than Working Group output/management
elianaP: we talked about living standards
AndyS: The living standards are good for handling errata.
… They can also add normative features to the specification, but they are constrained in what they can change
… They can not change anything that might affect existing implementations, so that's why fixing errata is okay.
… That's why adding features, providing it doesn't invalidate a lot of other stuff, is okay.
… So, yes, they exist, it's a good way to go forward to maintain the spec.
… But there's more than that if you want to have something that has more community involvement.
… And that might change and evolve, and might withdraw things, or change the emphasis, which, framed as a living standard, that would be changing implementations.
elianaP: last TF we need an update from -> SHACL CS
… but no real update from any folks involved
general business
elianaP: AndyS, I saw you created an issue about auto publishing
AndyS: I don't think there are any changes necessary, but I have to sync with Holger on that front.
elianaP: I'll get in touch with caribou after this meeting
… other than that, I think we are through with the agenda
<YoucTagh> Issue #594 : Add a Note About the Test Suite Conformance Check: w3c/
<YoucTagh> PR #483 path grammar: w3c/
YoucTagh: heads up -> the two comments
… having a note in the core -> that implementers can check their level of conformity using the test cases
… holger mentioned another possibility -> please vote
… another one is about the style of the SVGs vladimir was proposing