12:02:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #data-shapes
12:02:42 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/01/19-data-shapes-irc
12:02:42 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:02:43 <Robert> Robert has joined #data-shapes
12:02:43 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), caribou
12:02:43 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
12:02:43 <bergos> bergos has joined #data-shapes
12:02:44 <Robert> present+
12:02:49 <simonstey> present+
12:02:51 <edmond> edmond has joined #data-shapes
12:02:52 <bergos> present+
12:03:01 <edmond> present+
12:03:11 <HolgerK> present+
12:03:50 <simonstey> elianaP: same agenda points as usual, AndyS you added a new agenda point as well
12:03:59 <AndyS> present+
12:04:02 <simonstey> elianaP: no updates on the deliverables from my side
12:04:12 <simonstey> TOPIC: TF updates
12:04:25 <caribou> present+
12:04:40 <caribou> present+ DavidHabgood
12:04:40 <simonstey> HolgerK: I've merged in the unit property, there were no other remarks about this
12:04:43 <elianaP> present+
12:04:46 <elianaP> q?
12:04:54 <simonstey> ... I've created a new ticket, issue-725
12:05:11 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/725
12:05:26 <simonstey> ... this is a property, sh:intent, which can be used to capture semantics that are otherwise too difficult to express with SHACL
12:05:52 <YoucTagh> YoucTagh has joined #data-shapes
12:06:03 <simonstey> ... for many applications I think it's ok to have things like this expressed as text only
12:06:25 <simonstey> ... "a parent must be strictly older than each of its children"
12:07:28 <simonstey> ... the idea would be to allow people to put those kinds of "rules" in as text first
12:07:30 <SimonW> SimonW has joined #data-shapes
12:07:43 <SimonW> present+
12:08:00 <simonstey> ... and later picked up by someone else to be transformed into an actual shape later one
12:08:05 <simonstey> ... or maybe never
12:08:28 <YoucTagh> present+
12:08:54 <bergos> q+
12:08:56 <simonstey> ... so basically, have a dedicated place where the _intent_ of a shape/rule can be defined in natural language.
12:09:14 <elianaP> q?
12:09:20 <nicholascar> present+
12:10:17 <simonstey> bergos: I find this in general useful, but I think there a two aspects to this
12:11:04 <simonstey> ... one being: the intent basically representing a natural language description of a constraint
12:11:08 <simonstey> q+
12:11:38 <simonstey> ... the other one being: that it represents a constraint that adds to the existing one
12:12:26 <simonstey> ... the question is what the intent is supposed to contain
12:12:42 <simonstey> ... a description of the (existing) shape itself
12:12:52 <simonstey> ... or what it should contain
12:14:00 <simonstey> q-
12:14:13 <bergos> ack me
12:15:07 <AndyS> q+
12:15:29 <simonstey> simonstey: <mentioning sh:message>
12:16:06 <simonstey> AndyS: I was about to mention rdfs:comment, but sh:intent seems to be for the reverse direction
12:16:40 <simonstey> ... where the constraint is either non-existent or too week to represent it
12:16:43 <AndyS> ack me
12:16:46 <nicholascar> q+
12:17:07 <simonstey> HolgerK: yeah I started from that, and can reiterate on that
12:18:05 <simonstey> nicholascar: in geosparql, we had a similar issue where there are geometries typically expressed with coordinates
12:18:46 <simonstey> ... but sometimes we would have geometries which we cant express with coordinates, or the coo are not known yet, etc.
12:19:00 <simonstey> ... I'm not happy about the term "intent" though
12:19:25 <simonstey> HolgerK: I mean it's just an annotation property
12:19:54 <simonstey> ... so please suggest something else in the issue
12:20:15 <simonstey> ... in the node expression document there are a lot of todos
12:20:27 <simonstey> ... it would be awesome if other editors can have a look at those
12:20:43 <simonstey> ... otherwise the document is fairly finished
12:23:14 <elianaP> q?
12:23:15 <simonstey> elianaP: can we get some more examples for the use of sh:intentß
12:24:05 <simonstey> nicholascar: no report from the profiling WG
12:24:26 <simonstey> ... I pinged the compact syntax editors, but havent heard back
12:25:10 <simonstey> edmond: SHACL UI, no PR yet
12:25:20 <simonstey> ... few ongoing issues
12:25:44 <simonstey> ... we meet at our usual times, which is in the calendar
12:26:01 <simonstey> AndyS: not much to report
12:26:26 <simonstey> ... got some feedback over the weekend from some N3 folks
12:26:31 <edmond> edmond has joined #data-shapes
12:27:35 <simonstey> ... just by looking at the rules you don't necessarily know whether they are satisfiable or not without looking at the data
12:27:45 <simonstey> topic: SHACL protocol
12:29:02 <simonstey> ... we should address all issues where we know that we won't be able to tackle
12:29:32 <Robert> q+
12:29:52 <simonstey> AndyS: any examples of remote validation?
12:30:18 <simonstey> ... the closest I'm aware of would be sending shapes to a processor and it sends you back a report
12:30:35 <simonstey> ... where the processor is co-located with the data
12:31:24 <simonstey> ... you would have to send the shapes with the request or allow access to shapes to some extent
12:31:36 <simonstey> ... [half a protocal is not half a solution ]
12:31:59 <simonstey> Robert: we do have this process, where applications are triggering SHACL validation in the database
12:32:06 <simonstey> ... we have a normal REST api
12:32:41 <simonstey> ... mentioning RDFox where they added that to SPARQL endpoint with some magic property
12:32:44 <Robert> q-
12:32:52 <simonstey> ... you want to have the validation as close to the data as possible
12:33:02 <elianaP> ack nicholascar
12:33:12 <simonstey> AndyS: Jena has this sort of REST api as well
12:33:22 <simonstey> ... not really advertised though
12:33:48 <simonstey> HolgerK: we offer similar endpoints, via GRAPHQL
12:34:06 <simonstey> ... but that's a separate publication I reckon
12:34:26 <simonstey> AndyS: yeah, if someone wants they could provide a Note
12:34:52 <simonstey> AndyS: I'll put a note to the issue
12:35:39 <simonstey> elianaP: that was the last issue I had on the agenda
12:35:45 <simonstey> ... any last issues?
12:37:01 <elianaP> rrsagent make minutes
12:37:55 <elianaP> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:37:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/19-data-shapes-minutes.html elianaP
12:38:04 <simonstey> zakim, end meeting
12:38:04 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Robert, simonstey, bergos, edmond, HolgerK, AndyS, caribou, DavidHabgood, elianaP, SimonW, YoucTagh, nicholascar
12:38:06 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
12:38:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/19-data-shapes-minutes.html Zakim
12:38:12 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, simonstey; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
12:38:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #data-shapes
12:39:11 <caribou> Meeting: Data Shapes WG call - Jan 19th
12:39:17 <caribou> Chair: Eliana
12:39:25 <caribou> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:39:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/19-data-shapes-minutes.html caribou
12:39:58 <Robert> present-