Shacl12 overview

[nicholascar]

Viewable online at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/data-shapes/shacl12-overview/shacl12-overview/index.html

Closes #433

[nicholascar]

@ajnelson-nist the document so far has an Intro and the specification listing and just stubs for SHACL-SHACL, but is good enough to put through after comments here.

[ajnelson-nist]

What will this link be? I missed some of the nuance about whether we need to have "shacl12" somewhere in this path.

If we need to reflect SHACL 1.2 outside of the link and instead inlined in the graph-file, would owl:versionIRI be an option?

Please feel free to split this comment out to its own Issue if that'll be a big discussion. I somewhat suspect it will be.

[nicholascar]

This info's location is actually already superseded with the Appendix called "SHACL-SHACL", not "Validator", but the question about the IRI remains.

There is a plan to harmonise all SHACL namespaces into one, after development slows down/ceases, but I'm not sure if SHACL-SHACL will live in there with the rest of SHACL's definitions. I think we will retain /shacl-shacl, since it's already there.

I suggest we will make SHACL-SHACL all (the comprehensive 1.2 validator) be the default at http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl-shacl, that we create other IRIs for the part validators and that we point a versionIRI, as you say, at the soon-to-be old validator from 1.0.

[ajnelson-nist]

Understood on the superseding.

I think SHACL-SHACL should remain in its own namespace. It is an adopter of SHACL, making it distinct enough in purpose (to me, anyway) from the definitions of SHACL.

And, already having the namespace helps the decision.

[ajnelson-nist]

@nicholascar , I'm nearly ready to approve. I'd appreciate a reply and/or Resolve on the comment threads I started.

[nicholascar]

@ajnelson-nist I've addressed all the small comments with the profiles scope text to be updated later - when the subgroup determines it - and the IRI to be worked on further, later, too. Please re-review!

[ajnelson-nist]

@nicholascar , I approve, but you should have a look again yourself before merging. I noticed there was a section that carried over into a little incongruity, the Security section, so I adapted the text. There were a few design considerations that just naturally popped up. I think it's good enough to merge, but probably will need revising comfortably before Candidate Recommendation.

[TallTed]

[@ajnelson-nist] @nicholascar , I approve, but you should have a look again yourself before merging. I noticed there was a section that carried over into a little incongruity, the Security section, so I adapted the text. There were a few design considerations that just naturally popped up. I think it's good enough to merge, but probably will need revising comfortably before Candidate Recommendation.

@ajnelson-nist — I urge you to create a new issue for each incongruity, design consideration, or other point that you see as needing further revision before CR. You need not include suggested revision to handle each at this stage, which should hopefully make it fairly quick to create such issues. These issues can be closed quickly if they're resolved while addressing pre-existing issues, and if not so resolved, their existence will help us not forget to address them when the inevitable time crunch hits.

[ajnelson-nist]

[@ajnelson-nist] @nicholascar , I approve, but you should have a look again yourself before merging. I noticed there was a section that carried over into a little incongruity, the Security section, so I adapted the text. There were a few design considerations that just naturally popped up. I think it's good enough to merge, but probably will need revising comfortably before Candidate Recommendation.

@ajnelson-nist — I urge you to create a new issue for each incongruity, design consideration, or other point that you see as needing further revision before CR. You need not include suggested revision to handle each at this stage, which should hopefully make it fairly quick to create such issues. These issues can be closed quickly if they're resolved while addressing pre-existing issues, and if not so resolved, their existence will help us not forget to address them when the inevitable time crunch hits.

@TallTed - Yes, fair point. I'll make a note.

[ajnelson-nist]

@TallTed - Yes, fair point. I'll make a note.

#456 filed.