Meeting minutes
phase 1 deliverables
nicholascar: no updates regarding phase 1 deliverables
… regarding phase 2 deliverables (especially rules and profiling) -> coming up by end of march
… where we would have to show breadth of coverage
… i.e. all sections that will be addressed by the documents will be listed
… even if they dont have much content in it
old PRs
ajnelson-nist: still working through them, newest to oldest
… was a bit blocked due to US gov shutdown
core/sparql/node expr
HolgerK: merged in some recent changes in, also on sh:node
… a few very old PRs are still open
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
AndyS: I opened the issue about triple terms because I couldnt understand what the spec was actually saying
… I guess I've sort of wearing both hats in making that as It's also an RDF wg comment
… there's been some reaction, but I haven't taken this to the RDF wg yet
… 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)
nicholascar: whatever's the most effective way to communicate
… could be on the mailing list
AndyS: there's two cases there
… 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.
… 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
profiling
nicholascar: profiling, we are moving to a weekly schedule
… we have to put in a use case from the UI group
… and I'm working on adding another uc myself
… there are also other PRs we are currently working on
[updates from ajnelson-nist, YoucTagh, mgberg]
AndyS: there's respec support for "at risk" available
… to be preferred over postponed
UI
edmond: we created 3 new issues, 824: suggestion to move certain properties from core to UI (e.g. order)
… https:/github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/823: SHACL UI errorhandling -> we decided to have a guidance section in the document just to cover the common UI scenarios
… https:/github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/827: SHACL ui profileuc 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
… we also have a ticket listing all pages we plan on having in UI
Rules
AndyS: we had a meeting last week; where we discussed imports
… clear what we have to do here (not using owl:imports as we are not importing ontologies)
… would also have been the only part where we would use owl
… then we tackled about term creation undefined/infinite output
… we'll have all sections in that we want to have (but with at-risk labelled if necessary)
… very likely we'll start dropping features
… to keep the timescale, will also comment on issues requesting rules features
compact syntax
nicholascar: no communication here
RDF vocabs
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
… which has a stub of all the different SHACL deliverable-based validators
… 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
… please, can we consider putting any 1.2 RDF assets into that shacl-1.2-vocabularies folder? That's the first request.
… 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
<ajnelson-nist> I just put in a request for owl:versionIRI.
nicholascar: 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.
… To indicate... I don't know how much the W3C wants us to put in.
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
<TallTed> s|... 823 |... https:/github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/823 |
<TallTed> s|... 827 |... https:/github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/827 |