shacl12-node-expr, shacl12-inf-rules

[afs]

This PR adds two documents, one for node expressions and one for inference rules. (The document are empty in this PR. The CSS is lifted from an existing SHACl document.)

See #234 (comment) for the initial discussion.

The important point of this PR is the short names.
The short names in the initial PR are "shacl-node-expr" and "shacl-inf-rules".
Short names are the path component after /TR/ so they show up,

We could use longer "short names"
"shacl-node-expressions", "shacl-inference-rules"

[HolgerKnublauch]

Shouldn't this include 12, e.g. shacl12-node-expr?

[afs]

There is the short name for the series and the short name for each version.

"Short names" are keys in various W3C systems so they get copied around. Changing them later is disruptive.
cc @caribouW3

I think it might need a WG resolution to point to so the W3C system team can action things. I'm not sure which one is is most important, or maybe both. (This isn't something I have done very often.)

Changed to *12 for now.

And about the names themselves? Longer or shorter?

[HolgerKnublauch]

The names look good to me, as they are supposed to be "short".

[HolgerKnublauch]

And if we do the 12 in the name, shouldn't then the folder also be like shacl12-inf-rules?

[caribouW3]

There is the short name for the series and the short name for each version.

Yes, we have both in some cases: when the new version does not supersede the previous one.
Otherwise I think it's fine without a versioned shortname.

"Short names" are keys in various W3C systems so they get copied around. Changing them later is disruptive. cc @caribouW3

True

I think it might need a WG resolution to point to so the W3C system team can action things. I'm not sure which one is is most important, or maybe both. (This isn't something I have done very often.)

The decision is to be made formally by the WG when we publish the first public Working Draft. We can have different naming in GH (e.g. shacl-node-expr in GH but /TR/shacl-node-expressions when finally published)

[simonstey]

I fixed respec errors and aligned the section structure with the one of shacl12-core

[afs]

Let's not use tabs. They come out differently for different people/IDEs.
If they get mixed, then indentation can look quite irregular.

Does prettier work with reSpec?
The usual problem I encounter is the breaking lines inside links - legal but then the link e.g. a data-cite is unclear.