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

Arnaud Le Hors

• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 26 October 2016 (Thursday, 27 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 October 2016 (Wednesday, 26 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Virtual F2F poll (Thursday, 20 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 19 October 2016 (Thursday, 20 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 October 2016 (Tuesday, 18 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 11 October 2016 (Tuesday, 18 October)
• Moving call to Wednesday ok? (Sunday, 16 October)
• Re: Meeting days (Saturday, 15 October)
• Re: optional features (was Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close) (Thursday, 13 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 4 October 2016 (Monday, 10 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 11 October 2016 (Monday, 10 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 4 October 2016 (Monday, 3 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 3 October)
• Re: Declare and define (Sunday, 2 October)

Dimitris Kontokostas

• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Monday, 31 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Friday, 21 October)
• proposal to close issues related to sh:hasShape (Thursday, 20 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Friday, 14 October)
• Decomposing shapes (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) (Wednesday, 5 October)
• Re: "property values" (Tuesday, 4 October)
• Terminology section restructuring (Monday, 3 October)
• Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) (Sunday, 2 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 2 October)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Monday, 31 October)
• Re: sh:in vs. sh:value (Wednesday, 26 October)
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Wednesday, 26 October)
• sh:in vs. sh:value (Wednesday, 26 October)
• Stem difference between ShEx and SHACL (Tuesday, 25 October)
• Re: an alternative proposal for partition (Wednesday, 19 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Thursday, 13 October)

Holger Knublauch

• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Monday, 31 October)
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Monday, 31 October)
• Re: ISSUE-158: Request to review change (Monday, 31 October)
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Monday, 31 October)
• ISSUE-158: Request to review change (Monday, 31 October)
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Sunday, 30 October)
• Meeting time slot and daylight shifting (Thursday, 27 October)
• Re: sh:in vs. sh:value (Wednesday, 26 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Wednesday, 26 October)
• Re: Stem difference between ShEx and SHACL (Tuesday, 25 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Tuesday, 25 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Friday, 21 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Wednesday, 19 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 18 October)
• Re: FW: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined (Tuesday, 18 October)
• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed (Tuesday, 18 October)
• ISSUE-92: sh:partition (Tuesday, 18 October)
• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed (Tuesday, 18 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined (Monday, 17 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-184 (paths & value nodes): Property paths and value nodes [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 17 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Sunday, 16 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Friday, 14 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Friday, 14 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] (Friday, 14 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: optional features (was Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close) (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• ISSUE-182: What else is missing? (Wednesday, 12 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 11 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 11 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-183 (undefined term): Eliminating the term "Undefined" [SHACL - SPARQL] (Tuesday, 11 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties (Monday, 10 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties (Sunday, 9 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-186 (validaton report properties): Properties in validation report mis-use shapes graph properties (Sunday, 9 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Saturday, 8 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Friday, 7 October)
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Friday, 7 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Thursday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Thursday, 6 October)
• ISSUE-93 and ISSUE-94 (attn: Harold) (Thursday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Thursday, 6 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 4 October 2016 (Tuesday, 4 October)

Irene Polikoff

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are filters shapes?) - final questions (Friday, 28 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Wednesday, 26 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Wednesday, 26 October)
• FW: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined (Monday, 17 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined (Monday, 17 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Sunday, 16 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Friday, 14 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: Terminology section restructuring (Monday, 3 October)
• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) (Monday, 3 October)

Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

• Meeting days (Friday, 14 October)

Karen Coyle

• Re: ISSUE-158: Request to review change (Monday, 31 October)
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close (Monday, 31 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are filters shapes?) - final questions (Friday, 28 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Friday, 28 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Wednesday, 26 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Tuesday, 25 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Monday, 24 October)
• Sample comments (Thursday, 20 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Thursday, 20 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 19 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 October 2016 (Tuesday, 18 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 18 October)
• Re: FW: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined (Tuesday, 18 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined (Monday, 17 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined (Monday, 17 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Sunday, 16 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Friday, 14 October)
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: Decomposing shapes (Thursday, 13 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 11 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 11 October)
• Invalid is undefined Re: shapes-ISSUE-183 (Tuesday, 11 October)
• Action: format comments page as table - done (Monday, 10 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-183 (undefined term): Eliminating the term "Undefined" [SHACL - SPARQL] (Monday, 10 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 10 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties (Monday, 10 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties (Monday, 10 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Sunday, 9 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Friday, 7 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Friday, 7 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Thursday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Thursday, 6 October)
• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) (Wednesday, 5 October)
• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) (Tuesday, 4 October)
• Re: "property values" (Tuesday, 4 October)
• "property values" (Monday, 3 October)
• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) (Monday, 3 October)
• Re: Terminology section restructuring (Monday, 3 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 2 October)
• Declare and define (Saturday, 1 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 (Saturday, 1 October)

mark

• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed (Wednesday, 19 October)
• apologies (Tuesday, 4 October)

markh

• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed (Monday, 17 October)
• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed (Monday, 17 October)

RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

• shapes-ISSUE-193 (Focus nodes): Targets can be refined; focus nodes do not change (Thursday, 27 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? (Wednesday, 19 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 18 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] (Thursday, 13 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-189 (validation trigger): Clarify validation report trigger in section 3 (Sunday, 9 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined (Sunday, 9 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties (Sunday, 9 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-186 (validaton report properties): Properties in validation report mis-use shapes graph properties (Sunday, 9 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-185 (processing order): Processing order for filters and constraints [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 2 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-184 (paths & value nodes): Property paths and value nodes [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 2 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-183 (undefined term): Eliminating the term "Undefined" [SHACL - SPARQL] (Sunday, 2 October)

Simon Steyskal

• RE: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 October 2016 (Wednesday, 26 October)

Last message date: Monday, 31 October 2016 23:29:42 UTC