public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from April 2016 by author

Arnaud Le Hors

• Re: Issues Management (was Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined) (Friday, 29 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 28 April 2016 (Friday, 29 April)
• Issues Management (was Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined) (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-156 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 28 April 2016 (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Re: Some ISSUE proposals for this week (Wednesday, 27 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 21 April 2016 (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016 (Thursday, 21 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016 (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: More wording (Tuesday, 19 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 14 April 2016 (Thursday, 14 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 14 April 2016 (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 12 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes 7 April 2016 (Friday, 8 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 7 April 2016 (Wednesday, 6 April)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 31 March 2016 (Friday, 1 April)

Dimitris Kontokostas

• Re: sh:Shape and rdfs:class (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: More wording (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-144 (substitution): substition is sometimes used instead of pre-binding [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 6 April)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments (Sunday, 24 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Sunday, 17 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Tuesday, 12 April)

Holger Knublauch

• Re: ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 29 April)
• ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-153 (sh:sourceConstraintComponent modality): sh:sourceConstraintComponent is not required but some wording indicates that it is [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-156 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-123 (DirectType syntax): Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: Some ISSUE proposals for this week (Wednesday, 27 April)
• Some ISSUE proposals for this week (Wednesday, 27 April)
• ISSUE-107: Declaring SPARQL variable for sh:Parameters (Monday, 25 April)
• Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments (Sunday, 24 April)
• ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 (Friday, 22 April)
• ISSUE-105: Proposal based on sh:prefix (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Thursday, 21 April)
• New metamodel/SPARQL sections (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-149 (? vs $ in nodeKind): the SPARQL codefor nodeKind uses both ?value and $value [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-148 (scope syntax): non-uniform syntax in scopes [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 15 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• ISSUE-22: Suggested revision of wording on recursion (Thursday, 14 April)
• Proposal 4 is immature, untested and unstable (was: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax)) (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Moving forward with part 2 of the spec (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Current ShEx RDF metamodel? (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (Monday, 11 April)
• ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (was: fundamental problems with SHACL) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-147 (vocabulary tyops): misspelled vocabulary in specification document [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-143 (pre-binding in core): more pre-binding is needed in Section 3 [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-144 (substitution): substition is sometimes used instead of pre-binding [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-145 (minExclusive code incorrect): the SPARQL code for sh:minExclusive is incorrect [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense (Sunday, 10 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 8 April)
• ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (Friday, 8 April)
• ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 7 April 2016 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)
• Some issues that may be close to resolution (Wednesday, 6 April)
• ISSUE-101: Can we close this? (Wednesday, 6 April)
• ISSUE-110: Can we close this? (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-125 (sh:NodeConstraint missing): sh:NodeConstraint is mentioned but never defined [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 6 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 6 April)

Irene Polikoff

• Re: sh:Shape and rdfs:class (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: More wording (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: More wording (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: More wording (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: More wording (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: Clarifying word (Sunday, 17 April)
• Re: Clarifying word (Sunday, 17 April)
• Re: Clarifying word (Sunday, 17 April)
• Re: Clarifying word (Sunday, 17 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL (Thursday, 7 April)

Jim Amsden

• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: ISSUE-105: Proposal based on sh:prefix (Friday, 22 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec (Tuesday, 12 April)
• ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Monday, 11 April)

Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016 (Thursday, 21 April)

Karen Coyle

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: ISSUE-105: Proposal based on sh:prefix (Friday, 22 April)
• sh:Shape and rdfs:class (Wednesday, 20 April)
• Re: More wording (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: More wording (Monday, 18 April)
• More wording (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: Clarifying word (Sunday, 17 April)
• Clarifying word (Saturday, 16 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• Re: ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Friday, 29 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-123 (DirectType syntax): Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 28 April 2016 (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? (Thursday, 28 April)
• Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments (Saturday, 23 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 (Thursday, 21 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Tuesday, 19 April)
• Re: More wording (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: More wording (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: More wording (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (Monday, 18 April)
• Re: refactored syntax document available (Saturday, 16 April)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Thursday, 14 April)
• regrets for April 21 and April 28 (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: Shapes and/vs constraints (Thursday, 14 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Wednesday, 13 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 12 April)
• Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 (Monday, 11 April)
• valid and invalid shapes (ISSUE-134) (Monday, 11 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 11 April)
• new version of Validating and Describing Linked Data Portals using Shapes submtited to SWJ (Saturday, 9 April)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense (Friday, 8 April)
• Re: fundamental problems with SHACL (Friday, 8 April)
• fundamental problems with SHACL (Thursday, 7 April)
• the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 7 April)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 6 April)
• proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL (Friday, 1 April)

RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

• shapes-ISSUE-158 (ill-typed literals and sh:datatype): ill-typed literals do not always trigger a validation result [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 29 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-156 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Thursday, 28 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-153 (sh:sourceConstraintComponent modality): sh:sourceConstraintComponent is not required but some wording indicates that it is [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 28 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 18 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 18 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-149 (? vs $ in nodeKind): the SPARQL codefor nodeKind uses both ?value and $value [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 18 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-148 (scope syntax): non-uniform syntax in scopes [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 15 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-147 (vocabulary tyops): misspelled vocabulary in specification document [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 10 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 8 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-145 (minExclusive code incorrect): the SPARQL code for sh:minExclusive is incorrect [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 8 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-144 (substitution): substition is sometimes used instead of pre-binding [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 8 April)
• shapes-ISSUE-143 (pre-binding in core): more pre-binding is needed in Section 3 [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 8 April)

Simon Steyskal

• Re: Current ShEx RDF metamodel? (Tuesday, 12 April)

Simon.Cox@csiro.au

• RE: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL (Friday, 8 April)

Solbrig, Harold R., M.S.

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined (Thursday, 28 April)

Last message date: Friday, 29 April 2016 18:53:38 UTC