What is the SHACL version this group is working to produce?

[ajnelson-nist]

I noticed in Issue 223 that there is discussion of a "SHACL 1.1 ..." deliverable.

Yet, the deliverables noted today all describe SHACL 1.2 artifacts.

My understanding is that the 2017 SHACL Recommendation is "1.0", though the HTML documentation does not include the string "1.0," and the Turtle encoding of SHACL also does not include the string "1.0" or an owl:versionIRI.

Was there ever a 1.1? If not, where will the documentation go for why a 1.1 is being skipped?

This feels to me like a "Core"-taggable issue, but I'll leave that decision to the chairs.

[HolgerKnublauch]

The intention with 1.2 was

1. to align with RDF 1.2
2. to make sure that this is not just an incremental improvement over what was a 1.1 working draft from the CG. Nobody should mix up the historic 1.1 drafts with the shiny new 1.2 in the future as they have completely new deliverables (e.g. 1.1 SHACL-AF will just disappear and be distributed across multiple 1.2 docs).

[ajnelson-nist]

Thank you, @HolgerKnublauch ! That's straightforward enough to me. Will this be noted in the 1.2 Core document?

With your reply of ACK or NACK, I'm fine with this Issue being closed unless it's helpful as a reminder to include the 1.1-vs-1.2 in whichever document is appropriate.

[HolgerKnublauch]

As the 1.1 drafts have no official status, they can be updated to clearly point at their successor documents once they are in a stable state.

From the 1.2 docs, I would suggest we link to the official 1.0 specs where appropriate

	previousPublishDate: "2017-07-20",
	previousMaturity: "REC",
	prevRecShortname: "shacl",
	prevRecURI: "https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/",

So I would link from 1.2 to 1.0 and from 1.1 to 1.2 but not from 1.2 to the 1.1 drafts.

If you're OK, this could be closed.

[ajnelson-nist]

Your plan sounds great to me. Thank you for the walkthrough.

[caribouW3]

https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/

It should use the dated URI instead, because that one will point to the new spec, eventually.

[afs]

As well as the dated URI, RDF and SPARQL now have short-names with a version indicator for all documents. The unversioned short-name goes to the current spec.

       prevRecURI:           "https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321",
       prevRecShortname:     "sparql11-query",

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ -- goes to rdf11-concepts/
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/ -- Current editors working draft (after a pipeline that checks the doc)
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf10-concepts/

In RDF-star WG, working drafts are live and get updated on each merge-to-main. Each document has its own github repo so that may not apply here.

[HolgerKnublauch]

@caribouW3 But the new specs will have different names - shacl-core and shacl-sparql, so will they really replace "shacl"?

[caribouW3]

We will most likely redirect /TR/shacl to the Core part of 1.2
We could also have a kind of "cover page" at that URI to link to different versions (see fofr example https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/ ) but that mechanism is reserved to cases where newer versions do not supersede the
previous ones.
I suggest to add this issue to the next WG meeting.