migrate w3c/shacl to this repo

[dontcallmedom]

Both this repo and w3c/shacl seem to contain drafts of a number of specs; clarifying which one is authoritative and setting up redirects as needed would help.

[HolgerKnublauch]

Yes I will clean this up when I get back to work in January.

[VladimirAlexiev]

Related : #157

[afs]

See also: w3c/shacl#90 (which is waiting for an approval review ...)

[VladimirAlexiev]

@nicholascar @PapoutsoglouE : should you or @HolgerKnublauch do this? I've looked at the two repos and here's a sort of plan:

• Move all unresolved issues from https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/ to https://github.com/w3c/shacl/issues/
• Merge two https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pulls
• Decide what will be the main branch: it's main on https://github.com/w3c/shacl but gh-pages on https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes (all other branches there are passive, which is good)
• Merge all folders from https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes to https://github.com/w3c/shacl
• Clean up some folders, eg one or all subfolders of https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/tree/gh-pages/unmaintained
• Archive https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes with a link to https://github.com/w3c/shacl
• Resolve this and Which github repo to use? #157

[caribouW3]

The content of the w3c/shacl repository is under W3C Contributor License Agreement, used by the Community Group. That CG will be closed, so the repo can be more or less frozen, with links to the WG repo. Then the content of the WG repo will be updated. It's quite the opposite of the proposed plan above.

[HolgerKnublauch]

Thanks for the clarifications, @caribouW3!

I am working on copying the two main document drafts (core and sparql) to the data-shapes repo so that we can produce the correct links and quickly retire the shacl repo.

I noticed that data-shapes is not yet listed on https://respec.org/w3c/groups/

Also to be 100% sure: all references still point to the public-shacl mailing list. Is it correct that we will continue with that list even though the associated CG is being closed?

[HolgerKnublauch]

New PR opened at #167 - I hope my understanding is correct.

[caribouW3]

You should be able to use "wg/data-shapes" as the value for the group metadata in respec.

The mailing list is still public-shacl (transferred to the WG).

[HolgerKnublauch]

I have moved all remaining issues from shacl to data-shapes repo and updated the shacl readme to clarify that the CG has been closed.

I believe this addresses the purpose of this ticket so I'll close it for now.

[VladimirAlexiev]

Hi @HolgerKnublauch how about the other checkboxes listed above?
(As @caribouW3 said, that list should be in precisely the opposite direction :-))

[HolgerKnublauch]

My PR to merge the two drafts is still open. I guess once the WG has selected the editors, then the final folder structure can be discussed. I wouldn't want to copy everything from the shacl repo over, as the new documents will have a different structure.

Moving forward, I suggest to create individual tickets for incremental changes instead of checkboxes that may require individual discussion.