Initial potential editor drafts of core and sparql

[HolgerKnublauch]

These will contain various respec errors esp due to unreferenced definitions. This is intentional as these documents are the minimal starting point from the original spec (which was a combination of the two separate documents and thus has all definitions in a single place). My goal here is to make sure that the initial documents do not have any content changes from the 1.0 starting point, as any such changes need to go through the proper W3C process.

[HolgerKnublauch]

Also who are the owners and committers of this github repo now? I tried to add the WG chairs as reviewers but I don't see their user names here - mainly the members of the old SHACL 1.0 WG.

[simonstey]

Also who are the owners and committers of this github repo now? I tried to add the WG chairs as reviewers but I don't see their user names here - mainly the members of the old SHACL 1.0 WG.

:)

[HolgerKnublauch]

Hi Simon, I assume at this stage it's safe to add the two chairs @nicholascar and @PapoutsoglouE as admins - does this make sense @caribouW3 ?

[simonstey]

I've added them directly as admins as I couldn't figure out how to add them to the admin team:

edit:

You’ve been removed from the "data-shapes-admin" team on the "World Wide Web Consortium" organization.

Cheers & Octocats,
GitHub Support

;(

[caribouW3]

I have cleaned up the teams and used ones that are automatically sync'd with the W3C WG. (this is not really related to the original issue, let's stop discussing GH config now.)

[HolgerKnublauch]

@bergos @siwerner @YoucTagh please take a look at the Core part of this PR and whether it's suitable as a starting point. The idea here is that this is basically the 100% extract of the 1.0 spec just split into two documents. I don't want to include any semantic changes yet because those need to be approved by the WG.

Also please provide me with the required JSON for the editors data structure similar to mine so I will add you.

[HolgerKnublauch]

@ashleysommer please look at the SPARQL part of this PR, and similar to my previous comment here.

[bergos]

The schacl12-core part LGTM. I've created a PR to update the editor JSON #226

[YoucTagh]

I added the necessary JSON about me, and since I had write access, it didn't ask me to fork the repo and create a pull request. I have now forked it for future updates.

As for the draft, it looks good to me too, except for the styling of the colour-coded boxes, which broke when respec-w3c was used instead of respec-w3c-common (check #225).

[afs]

As for the draft, it looks good to me too, except for the styling of the colour-coded boxes, which broke when respec-w3c was used instead of respec-w3c-common (check #225).

Yes, the styling changes the colour-coded boxes for current reSpec.
This seems to be new w3c/CSS style: the reSepec documentation has the same for code in boxes.

it didn't ask me to fork the repo and create a pull request.

With multiple documents in-flight, we need to have a protected branch.

[HolgerKnublauch]

This was meant to be a starting point for core and sparql, and I see there are already several other change requests. To simplify the process, I have merged this into the main branch so that we have at least a starting point. I hope that's in the best interest of the WG so that everyone can make smaller PRs for individual edits such as the style clean up.

I am unclear why shacl-af and shacl-js were edited here too, as those documents are from the previous WG and will not be moved forward. But those edits could be reverted at any time.