11:48:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #data-shapes
11:48:32 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-data-shapes-irc
11:48:32 <AndyS> zakim, start meeting
11:48:32 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
11:48:33 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), AndyS
11:48:45 <AndyS> meeting: Data Shapes WG
11:48:45 <AndyS> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/agenda/admin/plenary-2026-03-23.md
11:48:45 <AndyS> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html
11:48:45 <AndyS> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-data-shapes-minutes.html
11:48:47 <agendabot> AndyS, sorry, https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/agenda/admin/plenary-2026-03-23.md doesn't seem to exist.
11:49:10 <Robert> Robert has joined #data-shapes
11:49:13 <AndyS> rrsagent, make logs public
11:49:15 <AndyS> rrsagent, please draft minutes
11:49:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-data-shapes-minutes.html AndyS
11:49:23 <AndyS> agenda?
11:49:44 <AndyS> present+
11:59:22 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #data-shapes
12:00:35 <nicholascar> nicholascar has joined #data-shapes
12:00:50 <elianaP> elianaP has joined #data-shapes
12:01:29 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #data-shapes
12:01:54 <simonstey> present+
12:02:58 <TallTed> agendabot, find agenda
12:02:58 <agendabot> TallTed, OK. This may take a minute...
12:03:05 <AndyS> agenda: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/agenda/admin/plenary-2026-03-23.md
12:03:06 <agendabot> clear agenda
12:03:06 <agendabot> agenda+ Phase 1 deliverables
12:03:06 <agendabot> agenda+ Phase 2 deliverables
12:03:06 <agendabot> agenda+ Review old PRs
12:03:06 <agendabot> agenda+ Task Force reports
12:03:08 <agendabot> agenda+ General Business
12:03:15 <ieben> ieben has joined #data-shapes
12:03:22 <Robert> present+
12:03:29 <Oggy> Oggy has joined #data-shapes
12:03:41 <agendabot> Sorry, I did not find an agenda.
12:03:47 <bergos> bergos has joined #data-shapes
12:03:52 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
12:04:00 <ajnelson-nist> ajnelson-nist has joined #data-shapes
12:04:02 <simonstey> topic: phase1 deliverables
12:04:04 <nicholascar> present+
12:04:07 <ajnelson-nist> present+
12:04:19 <ieben> present+
12:04:22 <edmond> edmond has joined #data-shapes
12:04:24 <AndyS> agenda+ Is there to be a meeting on April 6th?
12:04:33 <bergos> present+
12:04:43 <edmond> present+
12:04:59 <simonstey> elianaP: haven't seen any updates on the review issue on github
12:05:05 <YoucTagh> YoucTagh has joined #data-shapes
12:05:09 <simonstey> ... or have I missed anything?
12:05:37 <simonstey> nicholascar: my plan is that by the end of this month, we should have all deliverables ticking over
12:05:53 <simonstey> ... we really need to get some sort of summary
12:06:31 <HolgerK> HolgerK has joined #data-shapes
12:06:33 <simonstey> ... we should be hearing from the TF exactly how close they are to putting up something for wide-review
12:06:36 <HolgerK> present+
12:06:41 <mgberg> mgberg has joined #data-shapes
12:06:48 <mgberg> present+
12:06:58 <YoucTagh> present+
12:06:58 <simonstey> elianaP: there was a plan that we should at least have an outline and some form of commitment to what would be in that outline
12:07:14 <simonstey> ... so that we know what we can expect
12:07:14 <elianaP> q?
12:07:27 <simonstey> topic: open pull requests
12:07:34 <edmond> edmond has joined #data-shapes
12:07:37 <AndyS> agenda?
12:07:38 <simonstey> elianaP: ajnelson-nist, have you managed to address some of them?
12:07:48 <simonstey> ajnelson-nist: slowly but surely
12:08:05 <simonstey> ... I'll have to check which I addressed last week
12:08:16 <simonstey> topic: core, sparql, nodeexpr TF
12:08:49 <simonstey> HolgerK: went through all tickets and marked those that I believe should be closed as suggesting to be closed, some marked as risk
12:09:11 <simonstey> ... core, not everything is covered but with sparql and nodeexpr every ticket has an owner
12:09:32 <simonstey> ... the latter two are basically finished
12:09:55 <simonstey> topic: profiling TF
12:10:37 <simonstey> nicholascar: there are 22 open issues for profiling, have to go through all of them and check which are already addressed and which arent
12:11:03 <simonstey> ... assign them to owners, propose to close them if fitting, etc.
12:11:46 <simonstey> ajnelson-nist: most of our work last week was on issue 209 (?)
12:12:01 <simonstey> ... issue 623 was also discussed
12:12:23 <simonstey> ... waiting on input from the rules TF
12:12:48 <ajnelson-nist> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/576
12:12:54 <ajnelson-nist> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/830
12:13:08 <AndyS> q+
12:13:36 <nicholascar> Discussion about conformsTo in https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/825
12:13:43 <simonstey> nicholascar: dcterms:conformsTo is used by other stuff in W3C, but in only has weak semantics
12:14:14 <simonstey> ... not an object property, you can't/shouldn't really use it in property chain axioms or similar
12:16:05 <simonstey> nicholascar:  And so I've put the link in the chat, but there's a draft PR that talks about: do we need a property which is some SHACL-namespace conformsTo? It's the statement that you make when something validates
12:16:22 <simonstey> ...  this thing validates according to that thing, therefore this conforms to that. So it's the statement you can make, and then you could use it  elsewhere.
12:16:37 <simonstey> ... So we want to do it so we can validate something and then say: yes, that thing does conform to this thing, we can assert it. I think that is of general interest. We don't see a million use cases outside of the Profiling work yet for this, but I think if we end up doing what we think Profiling will do, we will have people asserting this more
12:16:37 <simonstey> often, and so we want to make sure that the statement reads correctly in relation to SHACL Core.
12:17:38 <AndyS> q?
12:17:43 <simonstey> ... coming back to your question eliana, we are on track
12:17:50 <simonstey> topic: UI
12:17:52 <edmond> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/332
12:18:02 <simonstey> edmond: renewed interest in the above issue
12:18:22 <simonstey> ... UI vs non-UI property shapes
12:18:31 <edmond> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/835
12:18:50 <simonstey> ... and we were wondering whether this issue should be more generalized so one can categorize shapes for different purposes
12:19:15 <simonstey> ... #835 lists what we plan on having in our document
12:19:33 <simonstey> ... somethings need to be written down yet
12:19:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-data-shapes-minutes.html TallTed
12:19:49 <simonstey> AndyS: wanted to ask ajnelson-nist what he was expecting from rules
12:20:32 <TallTed> previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/16-data-shapes-minutes.html
12:20:32 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/03/30-data-shapes-minutes.html
12:20:33 <simonstey> ajnelson-nist: remark from HolgerK, it's tied so the sh:entailment property
12:20:59 <simonstey> ... HolgerK suggested that there is a way that rules might satisfy custom entailment regimes
12:21:33 <simonstey> ... not actually seeing how that's differnt from my original ask like "can something in SHACL at large" handle custom entailment regimes
12:22:05 <simonstey> HolgerK: originally, I thought this was the use case of sub-propertyof, e.g. if someone wants to activate subpropertyof for inferencing
12:22:17 <simonstey> ... without bringing everything to OWL
12:22:25 <simonstey> s/to/of/
12:23:57 <simonstey> ajnelson-nist: The subproperty-of use case is the one that is loudest in issue #219, but the bigger issue of #219 is custom entailment regimes. Like, if I want OWL entailment, but I don't want everything about OWL entailment. then... how could I say that those in an entailment regime that's completely custom, but I don't want a SHACL engine to fail
12:23:57 <simonstey> if it doesn't report that it's not satisfying this entailment regime?
12:24:23 <simonstey> ... But say that... if a SHACL engine brings in a graph and asserts an entailment triple for all OWL inferencing ( OWL DL, let's say) then, if the entailment and the SHACL engine knows it can do that entailment
12:24:48 <Robert> Robert has joined #data-shapes
12:24:52 <Robert> present+
12:25:00 <simonstey> nicholascar: I was hoping this being something that could be done by SHACL profiling
12:25:42 <simonstey> [nicholascar and ajnelson-nist discussing how SHACL profiling could maybe used for this]
12:27:00 <simonstey> AndyS: so I'm not seeing any specific rules requirements yet
12:27:12 <simonstey> ... workflows not being part of the rules scope
12:28:02 <simonstey> ...  I would ask how you're going to know you're pointing to a rule set without dereferencing it and finding out what its MIME type is.
12:28:59 <simonstey> HolgerK: if sh:entailment points at the URI I mean, we could at least say in the core spec
12:29:22 <simonstey> ... how those should be interpreted
12:30:06 <simonstey> AndyS: That's the flexibility provided here. We provide you with the hammer. It's for you to decide whether that's a screw or a crinkle cut nail to apply that to.
12:30:20 <simonstey> topic: rules TF
12:30:27 <TallTed> present+
12:30:33 <AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/829
12:30:36 <nicholascar> Apologies everyone, I have to leave early - now! See the profiling people on Thursday and the rest of you next Monday.
12:30:41 <simonstey> AndyS: we have a meeting this week, the main topic being the issue above
12:30:54 <simonstey> ... particularly about bnodes appearing in the head template
12:31:04 <HolgerK> I also need to leave sorry
12:31:11 <simonstey> ... there is a proposal in the issue outlining how this could be addressed
12:31:29 <simonstey> ... but this will have implications on how things are used.
12:32:21 <simonstey> ... it needs to be more controlled and you can just write construct style blank nodes. there needs to be some rule ordering so that you know that each rule gets only executed once
12:32:26 <bergos> I also need to leave sorry
12:33:01 <simonstey> ... document has sections, (some of which are empty)
12:33:39 <simonstey> AndyS: assignment / bnodes issue is probably the one big vertical issue that we have to have a solution for
12:34:11 <simonstey> ... If we don't have that, then we have a real problem. It's not a feature you can drop. It's fairly essential in the core of the system.
12:34:23 <AndyS> ack me
12:34:36 <simonstey> ...  Please do the reading. It is a form of stratification around assignment. so a rule with assignment or template instantiation can be separated out and run at the appropriate moment and run only once which means you will get one set of blank nodes from the head template, and not an indeterminate number
12:34:56 <simonstey> ...  The attraction of the approach, as Oggy described it, is a classic approach to this class of problem. We have discussed some more ad hoc local solutions to the problem, but I'm somewhat cautious about getting too clever in this area unless we can find proofs that it is safe to do so
12:35:15 <simonstey> topic: compact syntax
12:35:38 <simonstey> elianaP: no update from the editors
12:35:46 <simonstey> topic: 6th april
12:36:07 <simonstey> elianaP: only 2 people would attend, for the rest it's public holiday
12:36:14 <simonstey> ... will skip it
12:36:29 <simonstey> caribou: EU is changing to summertime next week
12:38:33 <simonstey> [timezone discussions]
12:39:14 <AndyS> zakim, end meeing
12:39:14 <Zakim> I don't understand 'end meeing', AndyS
12:39:19 <AndyS> zakim, end meeting
12:39:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been AndyS, simonstey, Robert, nicholascar, ajnelson-nist, ieben, bergos, edmond, HolgerK, mgberg, YoucTagh, TallTed
12:39:22 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
12:39:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/23-data-shapes-minutes.html Zakim
12:39:29 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, AndyS; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
12:39:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #data-shapes
12:39:34 <AndyS> rrsagent, please leave
12:39:34 <RRSAgent> I see no action items