From 046d197e1a4e85455439b6f92471c72dbeb11ea7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Car Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 10:56:48 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] adoption of updated Draft Charter template --- charter-1.2/shacl-wg-old.html | 516 ++++++++++++++++++++++ charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html | 806 ++++++++++++++++++---------------- 2 files changed, 954 insertions(+), 368 deletions(-) create mode 100644 charter-1.2/shacl-wg-old.html diff --git a/charter-1.2/shacl-wg-old.html b/charter-1.2/shacl-wg-old.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5231069 --- /dev/null +++ b/charter-1.2/shacl-wg-old.html @@ -0,0 +1,516 @@ + + + + + SHACL WG Group Charter + + + + + + + +
+

+ [DRAFT] SHACL 1.2 Working Group Charter +

+

This proposed charter is available + on GitHub. + + Feel free to raise issues. +

+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Charter Status + + See the group status page and detailed change history. +
+ Start date + + Approx September 2024 +
+ End date + + Start + 2 years +
+ Chairs + + Nicholas Car (KurrawongAI)
+ Eliana Papoutsoglou (Taxonic) +
+ Team Contacts + + Xxx xxxxx (0.50 FTE) +
+ Meeting Schedule + + Teleconferences: The Working Group and its Task Forces generally each hold + weekly teleconferences, but this may vary over time according to agenda and preferences. +
+ Face-to-face: The Working Group generally meets during the W3C's annual Technical Plenary + week; additional face-to-face meetings may be scheduled by consent of the participants, usually no more than + 2 per year. +
+
+

+ Goals +

+

+ This Working Group is formed to: +

+ +

+ Scope of Work +

+

+ The scope of work for this WG is the delivery of the Specifications listed below in Deliverables section only. This includes test suite extensions and implementations necessary for specification ratification. +

+

Phases

+

+ This Working Group will take a phased approach to producing the individual deliverables as follows: +

+ +

The reason for this phasing is to ensure that the core SHACL specification updates are in place before extension work takes place.

+

Timing

+

+ Timing of Phase 1 is dependent on the work of the RDF-star Working Group (see Dependencies, below). The time that this WG needs for the substantive work of Phase 1 is not expected to be great - single figure months - given work to date (see the Deliverables). +

+

Phase 2 timing is unknown but is expected to take more than one year, even if the individual Deliverables are worked on in parallel, given the new material needed for some of them, in particular Inferencing Rules and Profiling

+

+ Out of Scope +

+ +

+ Deliverables +

+

+ Specifications +

+
+
SHACL 1.2 Core
+
+

+ This specification will basically be an updated and slightly extended version of the first part the SHACL 1.0 spec. + It should fix some unfinished issues in SHACL 1.0, such as recursion. + A goal is maximum backwards compatibility. +

+

+ For specific suggested issues see SHACL Core GitHub issues. +

+

+ There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 Core draft. +

+
+
SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions
+
+

+ This specification will be an incremental update of the second part the SHACL 1.0 spec. + It would include selected SPARQL-related features from the SHACL Advanced Features Report. +

+

+ For specific suggested issues see SHACL-SPARQL GitHub issues. +

+

+ There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions draft. +

+
+
SHACL 1.2 User Interfaces
+
+

+ This specification will define a richer vocabulary that can be queried by user interface tools to produce renderings of RDF graphs, + in particular for viewing and editing RDF resources on forms. + An example starting point is the DASH vocabulary. +

+
+
SHACL 1.2 Inferencing Rules
+
+

+ This specification will define a SHACL vocabulary to represent inferencing rules that can be used to infer new RDF statements from existing statements. + A starting point may be the Node Expressions and SHACL Rules + from the Advanced Features document. +

+
+
SHACL 1.2 Profiling
+
+

+ This specification will define methods for using SHACL to create formal profiles of (RDF) standards. +

+

+ This work will likely build on the profile definitions of the W3C's Profiles Vocabulary which has been used extensively with SHACL constraints and the proposed SHACL 1.2 Inferencing Rules. +

+

+ For specific suggested issues see Profiling GitHub issues. +

+
+
SHACL 1.2 Compact Syntax
+
+

+ This specification will define an alternative "compact" syntax that is custom-tailored for SHACL shapes. + A starting point is the SHACL Compact Syntax draft. +

+

+ For specific suggested issues see SHACL Compact Syntax GitHub issues. +

+

+ There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 Compact Syntax draft. +

+
+
+

+ Non-Normative Reports +

+

+ The group may produce other Community Group Reports within the scope of + this charter but that are not Specifications, for instance use cases, + requirements, or white papers. +

+

+ Test Suites and Other Software +

+

+ The previous SHACL WG created the Test Suite as described in the SHACL Test Suite and Implementation Report. +

+

+ This new WG will extend that Test Suite to cover new SHACL work and will work with as many implementers as possible to see new SHACL elements supported by tools. Members of the proposed new WG include contributors to the following implementations: +

+ +

Possibly too:

+ +

+ All previously known implementers will be contacted and invited to extend their implementations. +

+

+ Dependencies or Liaisons +

+

+ The initial work proposed for the WG is dependent on outputs from the RDF-star Working Group for the proposed SHACL 1.2 Core and SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions specifications since they intend to cater for RDF-Star. Liaison persons between this WG and the RDF-star WG have not yet been formalised. +

+

+ No other dependencies are known. +

+

+ Community and Business Group Process +

+

+ The group operates under the Community and Business + Group Process. Terms in this Charter that conflict with those of the + Community and Business Group Process are void. +

+

+ As with other Community Groups, W3C seeks organizational licensing + commitments under the W3C Community + Contributor License Agreement (CLA). When people request to + participate without representing their organization's legal interests, + W3C will in general approve those requests for this group with the + following understanding: W3C will seek and expect an organizational + commitment under the CLA starting with the individual's first request to + make a contribution to a group Deliverable. + The section on Contribution Mechanics describes + how W3C expects to monitor these contribution requests. +

+ +

+ The W3C Code of + Ethics and Professional Conduct applies to participation in + this group. +

+ +

+ Contribution Mechanics +

+

+ Substantive Contributions to Specifications can only be made by Working + Group Participants who abide by the W3C Process and follow the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. +

+

+ Contributions from non-WG members will need to be sponsored by a WG member. +

+

+ WG contributors will use the existing SHACL GitHub Repository for all work. All contributions will need to be reviewed by WG members other than the contributor before being accepted. +

+

+ Specifications created in the Community Group must use the + W3C Software and Document License. All other documents produced by + the group should use that License where possible. +

+

+ All GitHub repositories attached to the Community Group must contain a + copy of the CONTRIBUTING + and LICENSE + files. +

+

+ Transparency +

+

+ The group will conduct all of its technical work in public. If the group + uses GitHub, all technical work will occur in its GitHub repositories + (and not in mailing list discussions). This is to ensure contributions + can be tracked through a software tool. +

+

+ Meetings may be restricted to Community Group participants, but a public + summary or minutes must be posted to the group's public mailing list, or + to a GitHub issue if the group uses GitHub. +

+

+ Decision Process +

+

+ All scope and contributions decisions within this WG will be communicated within the SHACL GitHub Repository. +

+

+ This group will seek to make decisions where there is consensus. Groups + are free to decide how to make decisions (e.g. Participants who have + earned Committer status for a history of useful contributions assess + consensus, or the Chair assesses consensus, or where consensus isn't + clear there is a Call for Consensus [CfC] to allow multi-day online + feedback for a proposed course of action). It is expected that + participants can earn Committer status through a history of valuable + contributions as is common in open source projects. After discussion and + due consideration of different opinions, a decision should be publicly + recorded (where GitHub is used as the resolution of an Issue). +

+

+ If substantial disagreement remains (e.g. the group is divided) and the + group needs to decide an Issue in order to continue to make progress, the + Committers will choose an alternative that had substantial support (with + a vote of Committers if necessary). Individuals who disagree with the + choice are strongly encouraged to take ownership of their objection by + taking ownership of an alternative fork. This is explicitly allowed (and + preferred to blocking progress) with a goal of letting implementation + experience inform which spec is ultimately chosen by the group to move + ahead with. +

+

+ Any decisions reached at any meeting are tentative and should be recorded + in a GitHub Issue for groups that use GitHub and otherwise on the group's + public mail list. Any group participant may object to a decision reached + at an online or in-person meeting within 7 days of publication of the + decision provided that they include clear technical reasons for their + objection. The Chairs will facilitate discussion to try to resolve the + objection according to this decision process. +

+

+ It is the Chairs' responsibility to ensure that the decision process is + fair, respects the consensus of the CG, and does not unreasonably favour + or discriminate against any group participant or their employer. +

+

+ Chair Selection +

+

+ Participants in this group choose their Chair(s) and can replace their + Chair(s) at any time using whatever means they prefer. However, if 5 + participants, no two from the same organisation, call for an election, + the group must use the following process to replace any current Chair(s) + with a new Chair, consulting the Community Development Lead on election + operations (e.g., voting infrastructure and using RFC 2777). +

+
    +
  1. Participants announce their candidacies. Participants have 14 days to + announce their candidacies, but this period ends as soon as all + participants have announced their intentions. If there is only one + candidate, that person becomes the Chair. If there are two or more + candidates, there is a vote. Otherwise, nothing changes. +
    2. +
  2. Participants vote. Participants have 21 days to vote for a single + candidate, but this period ends as soon as all participants have voted. + The individual who receives the most votes, no two from the same + organisation, is elected chair. In case of a tie, RFC2777 is used to + break the tie. An elected Chair may appoint co-Chairs. +
    3. +
+

+ Participants dissatisfied with the outcome of an election may ask the + Community Development Lead to intervene. The Community Development Lead, + after evaluating the election, may take any action including no action. +

+

+ Amendments to this Charter +

+

+ The group can decide to work on a proposed amended charter, editing the + text using the Decision Process described above. + The decision on whether to adopt the amended charter is made by + conducting a 30-day vote on the proposed new charter. The new charter, if + approved, takes effect on either the proposed date in the charter itself, + or 7 days after the result of the election is announced, whichever is + later. A new charter must receive 2/3 of the votes cast in the approval + vote to pass. The group may make simple corrections to the charter such + as deliverable dates by the simpler group decision process rather than + this charter amendment process. The group will use the amendment process + for any substantive changes to the goals, scope, deliverables, decision + process or rules for amending the charter. +

+
+
+ + + diff --git a/charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html b/charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html index 5231069..91fd605 100644 --- a/charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html +++ b/charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html @@ -1,11 +1,13 @@ - + + SHACL WG Group Charter - - - + + + + + +
-

- [DRAFT] SHACL 1.2 Working Group Charter -

-

This proposed charter is available - on GitHub. +

SHACL Working Group Charter

+ + +

The mission of the SHACL Working Group is to update SHACL in line with the versions of core Semantic Web standards that cater for RDF-star and to extend the applications of SHACL with new packaging and use specifications.

+ + +
+

Join the SHACL Working Group.

+
+ +

+ This proposed charter is available on GitHub.

Feel free to raise issues.

+
@@ -137,7 +128,7 @@

Team Contacts

@@ -146,174 +137,221 @@

Meeting Schedule

- Xxx xxxxx (0.50 Carine Bournez (0.1 FTE)
- Teleconferences: The Working Group and its Task Forces generally each hold + Teleconferences: The Working Group and its Task Forces hope to hold weekly teleconferences, but this may vary over time according to agenda and preferences. -
+

Face-to-face: The Working Group generally meets during the W3C's annual Technical Plenary week; additional face-to-face meetings may be scheduled by consent of the participants, usually no more than 2 per year.
+ +
-

- Goals -

-

- This Working Group is formed to: -

- -

- Scope of Work -

-

- The scope of work for this WG is the delivery of the Specifications listed below in Deliverables section only. This includes test suite extensions and implementations necessary for specification ratification. -

-

Phases

-

- This Working Group will take a phased approach to producing the individual deliverables as follows: -

- -

The reason for this phasing is to ensure that the core SHACL specification updates are in place before extension work takes place.

-

Timing

-

- Timing of Phase 1 is dependent on the work of the RDF-star Working Group (see Dependencies, below). The time that this WG needs for the substantive work of Phase 1 is not expected to be great - single figure months - given work to date (see the Deliverables). -

-

Phase 2 timing is unknown but is expected to take more than one year, even if the individual Deliverables are worked on in parallel, given the new material needed for some of them, in particular Inferencing Rules and Profiling

-

- Out of Scope -

- -

- Deliverables -

-

- Specifications -

-
-
SHACL 1.2 Core
-
-

- This specification will basically be an updated and slightly extended version of the first part the SHACL 1.0 spec. - It should fix some unfinished issues in SHACL 1.0, such as recursion. - A goal is maximum backwards compatibility. -

-

- For specific suggested issues see SHACL Core GitHub issues. -

-

- There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 Core draft. -

-
-
SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions
-
-

- This specification will be an incremental update of the second part the SHACL 1.0 spec. - It would include selected SPARQL-related features from the SHACL Advanced Features Report. -

-

- For specific suggested issues see SHACL-SPARQL GitHub issues. -

-

- There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions draft. -

-
-
SHACL 1.2 User Interfaces
-
-

- This specification will define a richer vocabulary that can be queried by user interface tools to produce renderings of RDF graphs, - in particular for viewing and editing RDF resources on forms. - An example starting point is the DASH vocabulary. -

-
-
SHACL 1.2 Inferencing Rules
-
-

- This specification will define a SHACL vocabulary to represent inferencing rules that can be used to infer new RDF statements from existing statements. - A starting point may be the Node Expressions and SHACL Rules - from the Advanced Features document. -

-
-
SHACL 1.2 Profiling
-
-

- This specification will define methods for using SHACL to create formal profiles of (RDF) standards. -

-

- This work will likely build on the profile definitions of the W3C's Profiles Vocabulary which has been used extensively with SHACL constraints and the proposed SHACL 1.2 Inferencing Rules. -

-

- For specific suggested issues see Profiling GitHub issues. -

-
-
SHACL 1.2 Compact Syntax
-
-

- This specification will define an alternative "compact" syntax that is custom-tailored for SHACL shapes. - A starting point is the SHACL Compact Syntax draft. -

+ +
+

Motivation and Background

+

The primary motivations for forming this working group are to:

+
    +
  1. provide SHACL handling of for RDF-star and SPARQL-star
    2. +
  2. make minor updates to the SHACL core and extended specifications from 5+ years experience of their use
    3. +
+

The secondary motivation is to:

+
    +
  1. develop new specifications that assist with extended SHACL use
    2. +
+

For this secondary motivation, the areas of UI generation, reasoning rule definition and profiling descriptions are expected to be addressed. Others may be too, pending resourcing.

+
+ +
+

Scope

+

+ This Working Group is formed to: +

+
    +
  • update SHACL in line with 1.2 version updates to RDF & SPARQL, the core Semantic Web standards that SHACL is built on
    • +
  • extend the specification of advanced use of SHACL in line with use observed since 2017 & SHACL 1.0
    • +
  • develop new SHACL-based specifications in the areas of: +
      +
    • auto-generation of user interfaces to RDF graphs
      • +
    • reasoning rules - their dependencies, ordering and packaging
      • +
    • profiling mechanisms - how to specify constraints on specifications & models
      • +
    • a "compact" syntax
      • +
    +
    • +
+ +
+

Out of Scope

+

The following features are out of scope, and will not be addressed by this Working group.

+ +
    +
  • specifications not based on SHACL
    • +
+
+ +
+ +
+

+ Deliverables +

+ +

+ Updated document status is available on the group publication status page. +

+ +

+ Status indicates the state of the deliverable at the time of the charter approval. Expected completion indicates when the deliverable is projected to become a Recommendation, or otherwise reach a stable state. See Timeline for notes of Phase timing. +

+ +
+

+ Normative Specifications +

- For specific suggested issues see SHACL Compact Syntax GitHub issues. + The Working Group will deliver the following W3C normative specifications:

+
+
SHACL 1.2 Core
+
+

+ This specification will basically be an updated and slightly extended version of the first part the SHACL 1.0 spec. + It should fix some unfinished issues in SHACL 1.0, such as recursion. + A goal is maximum backwards compatibility. +

+

+ For specific suggested issues see SHACL Core GitHub issues. +

+

+ There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 Core draft. +

+

Status: Draft

+

Expected Completion: Phase 1

+
+
SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions
+
+

+ This specification will be an incremental update of the second part the SHACL 1.0 spec. + It would include selected SPARQL-related features from the SHACL Advanced Features Report. +

+

+ For specific suggested issues see SHACL-SPARQL GitHub issues. +

+

+ There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions draft. +

+

Status: Draft

+

Expected Completion: Phase 1

+
+
SHACL 1.2 User Interfaces
+
+

+ This specification will define a richer vocabulary that can be queried by user interface tools to produce renderings of RDF graphs, + in particular for viewing and editing RDF resources on forms. + An example starting point is the DASH vocabulary. +

+

Status: Not started

+
+
SHACL 1.2 Inferencing Rules
+

Expected Completion: Phase 2

+
+

+ This specification will define a SHACL vocabulary to represent inferencing rules that can be used to infer new RDF statements from existing statements. + A starting point may be the Node Expressions and SHACL Rules + from the Advanced Features document. +

+

Status: Not started

+

Expected Completion: Phase 2

+
+
SHACL 1.2 Profiling
+
+

+ This specification will define methods for using SHACL to create formal profiles of (RDF) standards. +

+

+ This work will likely build on the profile definitions of the W3C's Profiles Vocabulary which has been used extensively with SHACL constraints and the proposed SHACL 1.2 Inferencing Rules. +

+

+ For specific suggested issues see Profiling GitHub issues. +

+

Status: Not started

+

Expected Completion: Phase 2

+
+
SHACL 1.2 Compact Syntax
+
+

+ This specification will define an alternative "compact" syntax that is custom-tailored for SHACL shapes. + A starting point is the SHACL Compact Syntax draft. +

+

+ For specific suggested issues see SHACL Compact Syntax GitHub issues. +

+

+ There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 Compact Syntax draft. +

+

Status: Draft (from previous WG work)

+

Expected Completion: Phase 2

+
+
+ +
+ +
+

+ Non-normative Documents +

- There is an evolving SHACL 1.2 Compact Syntax draft. + The group may produce other Community Group Reports within the scope of + this charter but that are not Specifications, for instance use cases, + requirements, or white papers.

-
-
-

- Non-Normative Reports -

-

- The group may produce other Community Group Reports within the scope of - this charter but that are not Specifications, for instance use cases, - requirements, or white papers. -

-

- Test Suites and Other Software -

-

- The previous SHACL WG created the Test Suite as described in the SHACL Test Suite and Implementation Report. + + +

+

Timeline

+

+ This Working Group will take a phased approach to producing the individual deliverables as follows: +

+
    +
  • Phase 1 +
      +
    • SHACL 1.2 Core
      • +
    • SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions
      • +
    +
    • +
  • Phase 2 +
      +
    • all other proposed deliverables
      • +
    +
    • +
+

+ Timing of Phase 1 is dependent on the work of the RDF-star Working Group (see Dependencies, below). The time that this WG needs for the substantive work of Phase 1 is not expected to be great - single figure months - given work to date (see the Deliverables). +

+

Phase 2 timing is unknown but is expected to take more than one year, even if the individual Deliverables are worked on in parallel, given the new material needed for some of them, in particular Inferencing Rules and Profiling

+
+ + +
+

Success Criteria

+ + +

In order to advance to Proposed Recommendation, each normative specification is expected to have + at least two independent interoperable implementations of every feature defined in the specification, where +interoperability can be verified by passing open test suites.

+

Already the current version of SHACL has test suites and implementations (see the current SHACL Test Suite and Implementation Report). We expect to extend this work to cover all the new elements added in the Core and SPARQL Extensions specifications and to create similar Test Suites and Implementation Reports for the other normative specifications.

- This new WG will extend that Test Suite to cover new SHACL work and will work with as many implementers as possible to see new SHACL elements supported by tools. Members of the proposed new WG include contributors to the following implementations: + Members of the proposed WG include contributors to the following existing SHACL implementations:

-

Possibly too:

+

Other implementations that will be approached are:

  • dotNetRDF
  • Corese
    • @@ -324,193 +362,225 @@

    All previously known implementers will be contacted and invited to extend their implementations.

    -

    - Dependencies or Liaisons -

    -

    - The initial work proposed for the WG is dependent on outputs from the RDF-star Working Group for the proposed SHACL 1.2 Core and SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions specifications since they intend to cater for RDF-Star. Liaison persons between this WG and the RDF-star WG have not yet been formalised. -

    -

    - No other dependencies are known. -

    -

    - Community and Business Group Process -

    -

    - The group operates under the Community and Business - Group Process. Terms in this Charter that conflict with those of the - Community and Business Group Process are void. -

    -

    - As with other Community Groups, W3C seeks organizational licensing - commitments under the W3C Community - Contributor License Agreement (CLA). When people request to - participate without representing their organization's legal interests, - W3C will in general approve those requests for this group with the - following understanding: W3C will seek and expect an organizational - commitment under the CLA starting with the individual's first request to - make a contribution to a group Deliverable. - The section on Contribution Mechanics describes - how W3C expects to monitor these contribution requests. -

    +
-

- The W3C Code of - Ethics and Professional Conduct applies to participation in - this group. -

+
+

Coordination

+

For all specifications, this Working Group will seek horizontal review for + accessibility, internationalization, privacy, and security with the relevant Working and + Interest Groups, and with the TAG. + Invitation for review must be issued during each major standards-track document transition, including + FPWD. The + Working Group is encouraged to engage collaboratively with the horizontal review groups throughout development of + each specification. The Working Group is advised to seek a review at least 3 months before first entering + CR and is encouraged + to proactively notify the horizontal review groups when major changes occur in a specification following a review.

-

- Contribution Mechanics -

-

- Substantive Contributions to Specifications can only be made by Working - Group Participants who abide by the W3C Process and follow the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. -

-

- Contributions from non-WG members will need to be sponsored by a WG member. -

-

- WG contributors will use the existing SHACL GitHub Repository for all work. All contributions will need to be reviewed by WG members other than the contributor before being accepted. -

-

- Specifications created in the Community Group must use the - W3C Software and Document License. All other documents produced by - the group should use that License where possible. -

-

- All GitHub repositories attached to the Community Group must contain a - copy of the CONTRIBUTING - and LICENSE - files. -

-

- Transparency -

-

- The group will conduct all of its technical work in public. If the group - uses GitHub, all technical work will occur in its GitHub repositories - (and not in mailing list discussions). This is to ensure contributions - can be tracked through a software tool. -

-

- Meetings may be restricted to Community Group participants, but a public - summary or minutes must be posted to the group's public mailing list, or - to a GitHub issue if the group uses GitHub. -

-

- Decision Process -

-

- All scope and contributions decisions within this WG will be communicated within the SHACL GitHub Repository. -

-

- This group will seek to make decisions where there is consensus. Groups - are free to decide how to make decisions (e.g. Participants who have - earned Committer status for a history of useful contributions assess - consensus, or the Chair assesses consensus, or where consensus isn't - clear there is a Call for Consensus [CfC] to allow multi-day online - feedback for a proposed course of action). It is expected that - participants can earn Committer status through a history of valuable - contributions as is common in open source projects. After discussion and - due consideration of different opinions, a decision should be publicly - recorded (where GitHub is used as the resolution of an Issue). -

-

- If substantial disagreement remains (e.g. the group is divided) and the - group needs to decide an Issue in order to continue to make progress, the - Committers will choose an alternative that had substantial support (with - a vote of Committers if necessary). Individuals who disagree with the - choice are strongly encouraged to take ownership of their objection by - taking ownership of an alternative fork. This is explicitly allowed (and - preferred to blocking progress) with a goal of letting implementation - experience inform which spec is ultimately chosen by the group to move - ahead with. -

-

- Any decisions reached at any meeting are tentative and should be recorded - in a GitHub Issue for groups that use GitHub and otherwise on the group's - public mail list. Any group participant may object to a decision reached - at an online or in-person meeting within 7 days of publication of the - decision provided that they include clear technical reasons for their - objection. The Chairs will facilitate discussion to try to resolve the - objection according to this decision process. -

-

- It is the Chairs' responsibility to ensure that the decision process is - fair, respects the consensus of the CG, and does not unreasonably favour - or discriminate against any group participant or their employer. -

-

- Chair Selection -

-

- Participants in this group choose their Chair(s) and can replace their - Chair(s) at any time using whatever means they prefer. However, if 5 - participants, no two from the same organisation, call for an election, - the group must use the following process to replace any current Chair(s) - with a new Chair, consulting the Community Development Lead on election - operations (e.g., voting infrastructure and using RFC 2777). -

-
    -
  1. Participants announce their candidacies. Participants have 14 days to - announce their candidacies, but this period ends as soon as all - participants have announced their intentions. If there is only one - candidate, that person becomes the Chair. If there are two or more - candidates, there is a vote. Otherwise, nothing changes. -
    2. -
  2. Participants vote. Participants have 21 days to vote for a single - candidate, but this period ends as soon as all participants have voted. - The individual who receives the most votes, no two from the same - organisation, is elected chair. In case of a tie, RFC2777 is used to - break the tie. An elected Chair may appoint co-Chairs. -
    3. -
-

- Participants dissatisfied with the outcome of an election may ask the - Community Development Lead to intervene. The Community Development Lead, - after evaluating the election, may take any action including no action. -

-

- Amendments to this Charter -

-

- The group can decide to work on a proposed amended charter, editing the - text using the Decision Process described above. - The decision on whether to adopt the amended charter is made by - conducting a 30-day vote on the proposed new charter. The new charter, if - approved, takes effect on either the proposed date in the charter itself, - or 7 days after the result of the election is announced, whichever is - later. A new charter must receive 2/3 of the votes cast in the approval - vote to pass. The group may make simple corrections to the charter such - as deliverable dates by the simpler group decision process rather than - this charter amendment process. The group will use the amendment process - for any substantive changes to the goals, scope, deliverables, decision - process or rules for amending the charter. -

+

Additional technical coordination with the following Groups will be made, per the W3C Process Document:

+ +
+

W3C Groups

+
    +
  • RDF-star Working Group
    • +
+
+ +
+

External Organizations

+

None yet identified.

+
+
+ +
+

+ Participation +

+

+ To be successful, this Working Group is expected to have 6 or more active participants for its duration, including representatives from the key implementors of this specification, and active Editors and Test Leads for each specification. The Chairs, specification Editors, and Test Leads are expected to contribute half of a working day per week towards the Working Group. There is no minimum requirement for other Participants. +

+

+ The group encourages questions, comments and issues on its public mailing lists and document repositories, as described in Communication. +

+

+ The group also welcomes non-Members to contribute technical submissions for consideration upon their agreement to the terms of the W3C Patent Policy. +

+

Participants in the group are required (by the W3C Process) to follow the + W3C Code of Conduct.

+
+ +
+

+ Communication +

+

+ Technical discussions for this Working Group are conducted in public: the meeting minutes from teleconference and face-to-face meetings will be archived for public review, and technical discussions and issue tracking will be conducted in a manner that can be both read and written to by the general public. Working Drafts and Editor's Drafts of specifications will be developed in public repositories and may permit direct public contribution requests. + The meetings themselves are not open to public participation, however. +

+

+ Information about the group (including details about deliverables, issues, actions, status, participants, and meetings) will be available from the SHACL Working Group home page. +

+

+ Most SHACL Working Group teleconferences will focus on discussion of particular specifications, and will be conducted on an as-needed basis. +

+

+ This group primarily conducts its technical work on the public mailing list public-shacl@w3.org (archive) + and via GitHub issues. + The public is invited to review, discuss and contribute to this work. +

+

+ The group may use a Member-confidential mailing list for administrative purposes and, at the discretion of the Chairs and members of the group, for member-only discussions in special cases when a participant requests such a discussion. +

+
+ +
+

+ Decision Policy +

+

+ This group will seek to make decisions through consensus and due process, per the W3C Process Document (section 5.2.1, Consensus). Typically, an editor or other participant makes an initial proposal, which is then refined in discussion with members of the group and other reviewers, and consensus emerges with little formal voting being required.

+

+ However, if a decision is necessary for timely progress and consensus is not achieved after careful consideration of the range of views presented, the Chairs may call for a group vote and record a decision along with any objections. +

+

+ To afford asynchronous decisions and organizational deliberation, any resolution (including publication decisions) taken in a face-to-face meeting or teleconference will be considered provisional. + + A call for consensus (CfC) will be issued for all resolutions (for example, via email, GitHub issue or web-based survey), with a response period from one week to 10 working days, depending on the chair's evaluation of the group consensus on the issue. + + If no objections are raised by the end of the response period, the resolution will be considered to have consensus as a resolution of the Working Group. +

+

+ All decisions made by the group should be considered resolved unless and until new information becomes available or unless reopened at the discretion of the Chairs. +

+

+ This charter is written in accordance with the W3C Process Document (Section 5.2.3, Deciding by Vote) and includes no voting procedures beyond what the Process Document requires. +

+
+ +
+ +

+ Patent Policy +

+

+ This Working Group operates under the W3C Patent Policy (Version of 15 September 2020). To promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Web specifications that can be implemented, according to this policy, on a Royalty-Free basis. + + For more information about disclosure obligations for this group, please see the licensing information. +

+
+ +
+

Licensing

+

This Working Group will use the W3C Software and Document license for all its deliverables.

+
+ +
+

+ About this Charter +

+

+ This charter has been created according to section 3.4 of the Process Document. In the event of a conflict between this document or the provisions of any charter and the W3C Process, the W3C Process shall take precedence. +

+ +
+

+ Charter History +

+ +

The following table lists details of all changes from the initial charter, per the W3C Process Document (section 4.3, Advisory Committee Review of a Charter):

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Charter Period + + Start Date + + End Date + + Changes +
+ Initial Charter + + [dd monthname yyyy] + + [dd monthname yyyy] + + none +
+ Charter Extension + + [dd monthname yyyy] + + [dd monthname yyyy] + + none +
+ Rechartered + + [dd monthname yyyy] + + [dd monthname yyyy] + +

[description of change to charter, with link to new deliverable item in charter] Note: use the class new for all new deliverables, for ease of recognition.

+
+
+ +
+

Change log

+ + +

Changes to this document are documented in this section.

+ +
+
+
+ + From 4bc975905cf6f31e5da6213456aa699082719408 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Car Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:45:42 +0930 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] SHACL WG -> Data Shapes WG --- charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html b/charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html index 91fd605..e16d11c 100644 --- a/charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html +++ b/charter-1.2/shacl-wg.html @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ - SHACL WG Group Charter + Data Shapes WG Group Charter @@ -72,14 +72,14 @@
-

SHACL Working Group Charter

+

Data Shapes Working Group Charter

-

The mission of the SHACL Working Group is to update SHACL in line with the versions of core Semantic Web standards that cater for RDF-star and to extend the applications of SHACL with new packaging and use specifications.

+

The mission of the Data Shapes Working Group is to update data shapes standards in line with the versions of core Semantic Web standards that cater for RDF-star and to extend the applications of data shapes with new packaging and use specifications.

-

Join the SHACL Working Group.

+

Join the Data Shapes Working Group.

@@ -417,10 +417,10 @@

The meetings themselves are not open to public participation, however.

- Information about the group (including details about deliverables, issues, actions, status, participants, and meetings) will be available from the SHACL Working Group home page. + Information about the group (including details about deliverables, issues, actions, status, participants, and meetings) will be available from the Data Shapes Working Group home page.

- Most SHACL Working Group teleconferences will focus on discussion of particular specifications, and will be conducted on an as-needed basis. + Most Data Shapes Working Group teleconferences will focus on discussion of particular specifications, and will be conducted on an as-needed basis.

This group primarily conducts its technical work on the public mailing list public-shacl@w3.org (archive)