Bart van Leeuwen
Dean Allemang
Dimitris Kontokostas
Eric Prud'hommeaux
Holger Knublauch
- Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL (Monday, 27 February)
- ISSUE-234: Started wiki page for response (Monday, 27 February)
- i18n (was: horizontal review) (Friday, 24 February)
- ISSUE-232: Wiki page to collect security & privacy ideas (Friday, 24 February)
- ISSUE-233: Added section on sh:shapesGraphWellFormed (Wednesday, 22 February)
- Created page on postponed features (Wednesday, 22 February)
- WG meeting 2017-02-22 (Tuesday, 21 February)
- ISSUE-229: Draft response (Monday, 20 February)
- ISSUE-228: Draft response (Monday, 20 February)
- ISSUE-225: Draft response (Monday, 20 February)
- WG meeting 2017-02-15 (Tuesday, 14 February)
- Compact Syntax? - Fwd: [RDF AP] Update on RDF validation at W3C (Thursday, 9 February)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-226 (JSON-LD @context): Should the WG produce a JSON-LD @context (Thursday, 9 February)
- Fwd: loss of functionality (Thursday, 9 February)
- Fixed an incorrect IRI (Thursday, 9 February)
- ISSUE-139: Some parameters now lead to ill-formed node shapes (Thursday, 9 February)
- Re: Added a JSON-LD example (Wednesday, 8 February)
- Re: declaring (practically) insensible shapes to be ill-formed (Wednesday, 8 February)
- Added a JSON-LD example (Tuesday, 7 February)
- WG Meeting 2017-02-08 (Tuesday, 7 February)
- Early draft: SHACL-JS JavaScript extensions (Wednesday, 1 February)
Irene Polikoff
Pano Maria
RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
- shapes-ISSUE-234 (Peter 2017-02-22): Public comment https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Feb/0165.html [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 27 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-233 (Shapes syntax checking): Should we require support for checking of well-formed shapes graphs? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 21 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-232 (Privacy and Security): Respec suggests a section on privacy and security [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 15 February)
- shapes-ACTION-48: Produce a json-ld @context draft (Wednesday, 15 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-231 (sh:message in components): Could we allow sh:message for constraint components, not just validators? [SHACL - SPARQL] (Wednesday, 15 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-230 ($this and $PATH in sh:sparql): Inconsistency in the use of $this and $PATH in sh:sparql vs constraint components [SHACL - SPARQL] (Friday, 10 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-229 (results included in a validation report): Respond to the comment about what results to be included in a validation report [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 10 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-228 (Form of the validation report): Respond to the comment about the form of the validation report [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 10 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-227 (SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS): Behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components that use EXISTS [SHACL - SPARQL] (Thursday, 9 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-226 (JSON-LD @context): Should the WG produce a JSON-LD @context (Thursday, 9 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-225 (Validation Report details): Respond to "Validation results and reports" [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 8 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-224 (Improved shape type definitions): Can we improve the language around the use of rdf:types for shapes [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 5 February)
- shapes-ISSUE-223 (Shapes mismatching type): Should we disallow shapes with mismatching type [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 5 February)
Sandro Hawke
Simon Steyskal
Ted Thibodeau Jr
Last message date: Monday, 27 February 2017 23:56:34 UTC