12:02:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #data-shapes
12:02:20 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-irc
12:02:24 <edmond> edmond has joined #data-shapes
12:02:31 <Robert> Robert has joined #data-shapes
12:02:41 <AndyS> zakim, this is Data Shapes WG
12:02:41 <Zakim> got it, AndyS
12:02:49 <AndyS> zaki, start meeting
12:02:52 <AndyS> zakim, start meeting
12:02:52 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:02:54 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), AndyS
12:02:58 <Robert> present+
12:03:07 <HolgerK> present+
12:03:11 <AndyS> meeting:  Data Shapes WG
12:03:20 <AndyS> s/zaki, start meeting//
12:03:20 <elianaP> elianaP has joined #data-shapes
12:03:25 <SimonW> SimonW has joined #data-shapes
12:03:27 <AndyS> rrsagent, make logs public
12:03:29 <AndyS> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:03:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-minutes.html AndyS
12:03:37 <AndyS> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/12/08-data-shapes-minutes.html
12:03:37 <AndyS> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2025/11/24-data-shapes-minutes.html
12:03:38 <SimonW> present+
12:03:46 <elianaP> Topic: Phase 1 deliverables
12:03:52 <AndyS> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/agenda/admin/agenda-2025-12-01.md
12:03:53 <agendabot> clear agenda
12:03:53 <agendabot> agenda+ Phase 1 deliverables
12:03:53 <agendabot> agenda+ Task Force reports
12:03:53 <agendabot> agenda+ General Business
12:03:54 <simonstey> present+
12:04:00 <mgberg> mgberg has joined #data-shapes
12:04:13 <YoucTagh> YoucTagh has joined #data-shapes
12:04:16 <elianaP> Nick: Groups have been notified about the Phase 1 review.
12:04:22 <edmond> present+
12:04:28 <AndyS> scribe: elianaP
12:04:48 <elianaP> ...Two issues, #236 and #234 with progress points, on Github
12:05:39 <mgberg> present+
12:05:50 <AndyS> present+
12:05:59 <caribou> present+
12:06:05 <elianaP> ...Likely that only significant changes have to be mentioned, e.g. not privacy, accessibility etc. We do need the architecture review.
12:07:12 <YoucTagh> present+
12:07:16 <elianaP> ...In the previous SHACL version, the implementation report is in the test suite, we need to see if that can remain where it is and if it can be dual-indicated.
12:08:02 <elianaP> ...No major implications for the rest of the reviews. We just wait for responses.
12:08:54 <AndyS> q+
12:08:57 <elianaP> ...Then documents can move to CR, new changes won't mean that the whole body of those documents will have to be reviewed again.
12:09:01 <bergos> present+
12:09:12 <nicholascar> ack AndyS
12:09:48 <elianaP> AndyS: We have an issue about user protocols. Permissions may be tricky.
12:10:01 <elianaP> ...SHACL could therefore be a tool to leak data.
12:10:38 <bergos> q+
12:10:44 <elianaP> ...Reviewers for security may raise an issue about this.
12:11:27 <elianaP> ...Nothing in the spec says that implementers have to consider potential security risks.
12:12:06 <elianaP> ...A change may be necessary in the security section. We don't know right now the preferences W3C has on this point.
12:13:22 <elianaP> Nick: In the Privacy and Security section, user actions resulting in data leaks are mentioned. We don't fall into that category. Maybe security more than privacy.
12:13:46 <elianaP> ...Validation reports may be accessible to parties unauthorized to access the actual data.
12:14:18 <elianaP> s/#234/#235
12:14:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-minutes.html elianaP
12:15:08 <elianaP> ...Once you're in a graph, maybe the SHACL engine can see parts of it.
12:15:38 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #data-shapes
12:16:04 <elianaP> ...In the reviewer reports, in the self-assessment section, now in issue #682 with 22 questions, we have written answers. Should check if we can add more there.
12:17:04 <elianaP> Thomas: We have to be careful about what the engine has access to, and who the validation report goes to.
12:18:09 <bergos> ack me
12:18:22 <elianaP> Nick:  Let's see if this will be an issue for the P&S group. Even if they don't, maybe we should still consider it further.
12:18:26 <TallTed> present+
12:18:32 <TallTed> q+
12:19:06 <TallTed> q?
12:19:11 <elianaP> caribou: Not sure how much attention will be given to this point.
12:19:18 <nicholascar> ack TallTed
12:19:20 <TallTed> q+
12:19:30 <nicholascar> ack TallTed
12:19:31 <AndyS> ack TallTed
12:21:35 <elianaP> TallTed: W3C won't inspect this point from that perspective. We have to say "be careful with sensitive data" but are not obliged to solve the issue in SHACL.
12:22:20 <elianaP> Nick: We should raise this point so that users are aware of potential risks.
12:22:43 <nicholascar> q?
12:23:01 <elianaP> Topic: Task force reports
12:23:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:23:29 <nicholascar> q?
12:24:06 <elianaP> Nick: Core group update
12:24:27 <TallTed> i|this is Data Shapes WG|chair: nicholascar
12:24:34 <nicholascar> q?
12:24:58 <elianaP> HolgerK: No significant updates. Also not for SPARQL, just editorial changes. For Node Shapes, we renamed the namespaces for consistency (ns/shacl-[something'])
12:25:50 <elianaP> Nick: Profiles group update: Meeting again this week. I have thoughts about adding elements. Question to core: is there a superproperty of sh:targetClass or other targer properties?
12:26:24 <elianaP> ...Might be interesting to have a superproperty for targets. Will discuss with the Profiling group.
12:26:44 <elianaP> ...SHACL UI group update:
12:27:26 <elianaP> Edmond: PRs have been merged. Widgets are being discussed. Data retrieval from named graphs is another point.
12:28:06 <elianaP> ...How do we handle blank nodes, how do we retrieve data from remote sources? Topic has been added to General Business, to discuss if we have time today.
12:28:14 <elianaP> Nick: SHACL Rules report
12:28:30 <AndyS> scribe+
12:28:30 <AndyS> AndyS: Rules TF
12:28:45 <AndyS> ... 1. Definitions now in ED : https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl12-rules/
12:29:15 <AndyS> ... 2. Process: baseline then features
12:29:15 <AndyS> ...    Timescale: WG runs until "2026-12"^^xsd:gYear : Need doc+tests+implementation reports.
12:31:26 <elianaP> AndyS: Let's concentrate on the base features, but let's be careful with extra features and see what time allows.
12:32:09 <TallTed> present+ DavidHabgood, caribou, elianaP
12:32:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:32:47 <TallTed> present+ nicholascar
12:32:55 <nicholascar> q?
12:32:59 <elianaP> Nick: Content ideas need to be written down in Q1 2026 for us to have a better picture. We may have to be harsh when deciding what will make the cut.
12:33:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:33:32 <AndyS> AndyS: 3. Tests: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/test-manifest#
12:33:32 <AndyS> ...    a test is an action (rules+data) and a result.
12:33:32 <AndyS> ...    syntax (inc well-formedness) and evaluation tests
12:33:32 <AndyS> ...    https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/677
12:33:37 <elianaP> AndyS: Let's use TF meetings for discussions and do more work asynchronously in documents.
12:34:22 <bergos> q+
12:34:25 <simonstey> q+
12:35:19 <nicholascar> ack bergos
12:35:59 <elianaP> bergos: For validations, we have tests where the data and the shapes are in separate graphs. Reports are usually in the same file.
12:36:37 <elianaP> ...Do we have to have new namespaces and structures?
12:36:45 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/test-manifest# ?
12:37:08 <elianaP> AndyS: We have to keep those to make clear which test is being run
12:37:19 <AndyS> q?
12:37:48 <nicholascar> ack simonstey
12:37:48 <simonstey> q-
12:38:33 <elianaP> simonstey: Can't we use the way SHACL Construct uses? Do we have test cases for the SHACL 1.0 rules, as that was the same situartion?
12:38:50 <elianaP> AndyS: It's the same indeed
12:39:04 <AndyS> ack simonstey
12:39:26 <AndyS> AndyS:  FPWD
12:39:28 <elianaP> Nick: Haven't thought about tests for Profiles. Worth considering on Thursday.
12:40:37 <elianaP> ...Documents have to be moved to FPWD.
12:41:04 <elianaP> caribou: The group can decide this during a call.
12:41:42 <elianaP> AndyS: We signaled that we would do this a couple of weeks ago. Can we vote/agree now? The editors are here.
12:41:47 <simonstey> +1 (happy)
12:41:51 <elianaP> Nick: Anyone who needs more time, any objections?
12:41:56 <nicholascar> q?
12:42:21 <elianaP> ...No objections, we have voted to publish the FPWD.
12:42:29 <AndyS> scribe-
12:42:43 <caribou> RESOLUTION: the SHACL Rules document will be published as a FPWD
12:44:14 <elianaP> simonstey: regrets for some future Rules task force meetings, can they be moved?
12:44:29 <elianaP> AndyS: 12:00 CET?
12:44:59 <AndyS> Notation3 discussion with Dörthe Arndt
12:45:14 <AndyS> date/time now to be rearranged
12:45:36 <elianaP> Nick: No one on from SHACL-C
12:46:10 <elianaP> ...We will have to make some decisions about this. Let's ask for a proposed timeline from the editors.
12:46:26 <elianaP> Topic: SHACL UI discussion
12:46:40 <elianaP> Edmond: Should a named graph be supported? Two scenarios and questions.
12:47:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-minutes.html AndyS
12:47:33 <elianaP> ...Scenario #1: Should SHACL-UI have the capability, when it fetches data, to target named graphs outside the main SHACL data graph. Useful for widgets for data tables. We have some practical use cases.
12:48:10 <elianaP> ...Scenario #2: Should editiing (including writing data) be supported by SHACL-UI?
12:48:29 <elianaP> ...and should this be supported for different / named data graphs?
12:49:02 <elianaP> ...Does SHACL Core have mechanisms that support this already? Does the group have similar use cases? Are those use cases practical to support?
12:49:16 <elianaP> ...Scenario #1 seems like a likely yes, Scenario #2 seems harder.
12:49:35 <elianaP> Nick: Scenario #2: is this about writing changes to a different graph?
12:49:56 <elianaP> Edmond: Maybe. Or the resources displayed are pulled from multiple graphs.
12:50:25 <elianaP> Nick: Is it important to be able to pull from multiple graphs? For shapes and data?
12:50:56 <elianaP> Edmond: Data may live in different named graphs to populate certain widgets and then write back to the named graph.
12:51:25 <elianaP> Nick: This is also related to the previously discussed point about security. Is there feedback now?
12:51:32 <bergos> q+
12:51:41 <nicholascar> ack bergos
12:52:29 <elianaP> bergos: We should think of this as general data support. Should there be a Core feature that says you can support general datasets with different levels of complexity or entry? Should we tackle this as a UI-specific issue?
12:53:16 <elianaP> ...From an implementer's perspective this may be difficult. But there are scenarios where we may need support on multiple levels.
12:53:38 <elianaP> ...In the Core group, no one thought this didn't make sense, but also no one picked it up
12:54:58 <elianaP> HolgerK: We discussed last year November, there was a suggestion to raise a ticket about this. The decision was to keep Core tidy and simple, not add annotations for named graphs to different constraints.
12:55:09 <elianaP> ...This is probably too big a change to bring into the picture now
12:55:48 <elianaP> Nick: If we don't get such a change into Core, can the UI group survive? What would the implications be?
12:56:24 <elianaP> ...(question to Edmond/bergos: what would the outcome be if this change is not made?)
12:56:27 <nicholascar> q?
12:56:50 <elianaP> ...No other general business items. That's the meeting!
12:57:16 <TallTed> s/Nick:/nicholascar:/g
12:57:16 <TallTed> s/Thomas:/bergos:/g
12:57:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:57:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/01-data-shapes-minutes.html elianaP