12:00:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #data-shapes
12:00:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-irc
12:00:44 <AndyS> zakim, start meeting
12:00:44 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:00:45 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), AndyS
12:00:45 <nicholascar> nicholascar has joined #data-shapes
12:01:11 <AndyS> meeting: Data Shapes WG
12:01:11 <AndyS> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/agenda/admin/plenary-2026-03-16.md
12:01:11 <AndyS> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/09-data-shapes-minutes.html
12:01:11 <AndyS> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-data-shapes-minutes.html
12:01:13 <AndyS> rrsagent, make logs public
12:01:14 <AndyS> rrsagent, please draft minutes
12:01:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html AndyS
12:01:22 <AndyS> agenda?
12:01:22 <agendabot> clear agenda
12:01:22 <agendabot> agenda+ Phase 1 deliverables
12:01:22 <agendabot> agenda+ Phase 2 deliverables
12:01:22 <agendabot> agenda+ Review old PRs
12:01:22 <agendabot> agenda+ Task Force reports
12:01:22 <agendabot> agenda+ General Business
12:02:11 <HolgerK> HolgerK has joined #data-shapes
12:02:30 <nicholascar> present+
12:02:46 <elianaP> elianaP has joined #data-shapes
12:03:23 <YoucTagh> YoucTagh has joined #data-shapes
12:03:54 <ajnelson-nist> ajnelson-nist has joined #data-shapes
12:04:01 <ajnelson-nist> present+
12:04:15 <mgberg> mgberg has joined #data-shapes
12:04:16 <bergos> bergos has joined #data-shapes
12:04:28 <mgberg> present+
12:04:35 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #data-shapes
12:04:36 <caribou> present+
12:04:46 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
12:05:09 <simonstey> present+
12:05:20 <AndyS> present+
12:05:42 <HolgerK> present+
12:06:08 <YoucTagh> present+
12:06:41 <bergos> present+
12:07:01 <edmond> edmond has joined #data-shapes
12:07:21 <simonstey> topic: phase 1 deliverables
12:07:33 <simonstey> nicholascar: no updates regarding phase 1 deliverables
12:07:53 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #data-shapes
12:08:15 <simonstey> ... regarding phase 2 deliverables (especially rules and profiling) -> coming up by end of march
12:08:45 <simonstey> ... where we would have to show breadth of coverage
12:09:17 <simonstey> ... i.e. all sections that will be addressed by the documents will be listed
12:09:31 <simonstey> ... even if they dont have much content in it
12:09:50 <simonstey> topic: old PRs
12:10:05 <simonstey> ajnelson-nist: still working through them, newest to oldest
12:10:07 <AndyS> q+
12:10:23 <simonstey> ... was a bit blocked due to US gov shutdown
12:10:36 <simonstey> topic: core/sparql/node expr
12:11:29 <TallTed> present+
12:11:34 <elianaP> present+
12:11:42 <simonstey> HolgerK: merged in some recent changes in, also on sh:node
12:12:09 <simonstey> ... a few very old PRs are still open
12:12:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:13:15 <nicholascar> ack AndyS
12:13:19 <simonstey> HolgerK: my time is very limited, and I tackled a lot of them already I would say.. everyone is invited to also address/tackle them
12:13:30 <labra> labra has joined #data-shapes
12:13:41 <simonstey> AndyS: I opened the issue about triple terms because I couldnt understand what the spec was actually saying
12:14:08 <TallTed> chair: nicholascar
12:14:10 <simonstey> ... I guess I've sort of wearing both hats in making that as It's also an RDF wg comment
12:14:42 <simonstey> ... there's been some reaction, but I haven't taken this to the RDF wg yet
12:15:21 <simonstey> ... do you want any feedback come in on the formal channel? i.e. as issues within this wg? (both a question to the chairs and editors)
12:15:40 <simonstey> nicholascar: whatever's the most effective way to communicate
12:15:57 <simonstey> ... could be on the mailing list
12:16:21 <simonstey> AndyS: there's two cases there
12:16:45 <AndyS> ack me
12:18:12 <simonstey> ...  I mean, I was using it as a prompt to actually go and review the documents, and add some detail to answer questions.. hopefully to be able to communicate better within the RDF Working Group. And it's something I came across, and obviously it's very related to the changes in RDF 1.2. So I don't mind for that one.
12:18:22 <TallTed> present+ edmond, Jose_Labra, Agnjen_Savkovic
12:18:24 <simonstey> ... I think using the term "at risk" is a good idea, and I've done that in the rules document, because it's less black and white about closing things. I think just marking things as postponed and closing them
12:18:53 <simonstey> topic: profiling
12:18:56 <simonstey> nicholascar: profiling, we are moving to a weekly schedule
12:19:19 <simonstey> ... we have to put in a use case from the UI group
12:19:34 <simonstey> ... and I'm working on adding another uc myself
12:19:43 <AndyS> q+
12:20:03 <simonstey> ... there are also other PRs we are currently working on
12:20:15 <Robert> Robert has joined #data-shapes
12:20:20 <Robert> present+
12:20:30 <simonstey> [updates from ajnelson-nist, YoucTagh, mgberg]
12:20:51 <simonstey> AndyS: there's respec support for "at risk" available
12:21:05 <simonstey> ... to be preferred over postponed
12:21:10 <simonstey> topic: UI
12:21:40 <simonstey> edmond: we created 3 new issues, 824: suggestion to move certain properties from core to UI (e.g. order)
12:22:16 <simonstey> ... 823: SHACL UI error handling -> we decided to have a guidance section in the document just to cover the common UI scenarios
12:23:01 <simonstey> ... 827: SHACL ui profile uc where we want to have a mechanism in profile to allow implementations to package up the different features that they support in their impl of SHACL ui
12:23:10 <nicholascar> q?
12:23:18 <AndyS> ack me
12:23:22 <simonstey> ... we also have a ticket listing all pages we plan on having in UI
12:23:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:23:33 <simonstey> topic: Rules
12:23:38 <simonstey> AndyS: we had a meeting last week; where we discussed imports
12:24:02 <simonstey> ... clear what we have to do here (not using owl:imports as we are not importing ontologies)
12:24:22 <simonstey> ... would also have been the only part where we would use owl
12:24:51 <simonstey> ... then we tackled about term creation undefined/infinite output
12:25:32 <simonstey> ... we'll have all sections in that we want to have (but with at-risk labelled if necessary)
12:25:53 <simonstey> ... very likely we'll start dropping features
12:26:43 <simonstey> ... to keep the timescale, will also comment on issues requesting rules features
12:26:55 <simonstey> topic: compact syntax
12:27:09 <simonstey> nicholascar: no communication here
12:27:18 <simonstey> topic: RDF vocabs
12:28:22 <ajnelson-nist> q+
12:28:50 <simonstey> nicholascar:   So we have a shacl-1-to-dash-vocabularies folder within the repository. There are some files in there, and I realized that SHACL Profiling hadn't put its content in there, and SHACL Overview
12:29:02 <simonstey> ... which has a stub of all the different SHACL deliverable-based validators
12:29:27 <simonstey> ...  is kind of here, there, and everywhere. So I'd just like to ask editors to consider, over the next week or two: if you've got an RDF asset somewhere, can we put those all in a place to find them more easily? And I'm pointing the finger at myself here ( I couldn't even find my own assets very well, so I haven't done a good job there) . So
12:29:27 <simonstey> please, can we consider putting any 1.2 RDF assets into that shacl-1.2-vocabularies folder? That's the first request.
12:29:40 <simonstey> ...  The second request is: can I add metadata to the files that are in there? Looking at the files in there, which includes the SHACL core vocabulary, the SHACL validator, SHACL node expressions, and a few other bits and pieces
12:29:42 <ajnelson-nist> I just put in a request for owl:versionIRI.
12:29:43 <ajnelson-nist> ack me
12:29:52 <simonstey> ... they've got very minimal metadata for the ontology, and then they've got a bit of commenting at the top of the file which indicates the license and so on. I think we can do a bit better than that, and unless anybody objects, what I'd like to do is to actually include semantic metadata in there, to indicate the license more directly and so on.
12:29:52 <simonstey> To indicate... I don't know how much the W3C wants us to put in.
12:30:41 <caribou> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:30:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html caribou
12:31:34 <simonstey> nicholascar: So the critical one will be the SHACL core.. I'll put a PR in for those bits of metadata, and people are free to comment on that. But I thought I'd just check with everyone first
12:31:39 <simonstey> RRSAgent, make minutes
12:31:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html simonstey
12:39:03 <TallTed> s|... 823 |... https:/github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/823 |
12:39:13 <TallTed> s|... 827 |... https:/github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/827 |
12:39:59 <TallTed> s/please, can we consider/... please, can we consider/
12:40:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:40:59 <TallTed> s/To indicate... I don't know/... To indicate... I don't know/
12:42:13 <TallTed> s/... 823: SHACL UI error /... https:/github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/823: SHACL UI error
12:43:06 <TallTed> s/... 827: SHACL ui profile /... https:/github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/827: SHACL ui profile
12:43:14 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
12:43:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed