public-rdf-shapes@w3.org from February 2017 by author

Dimitris Kontokostas

• Re: Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (Saturday, 25 February)

Holger Knublauch

• Re: on value (Tuesday, 28 February)
• Re: limiting ill-formed nodes in SHACL (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: on value (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Comments on Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C Editor's Draft 22 February 2017 (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: SHACL for OWL2 (Sunday, 26 February)
• Re: status of SHACL-SPARQL (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: on compliance testing for SHACL (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: SHACL for OWL2 (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: target and property shape (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Review of SHACL document (2) (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Review of SHACL document (2) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: handling recursive shapes in SHACL (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: syntax checking for SHACL (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Comment on Entailment Regimes (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Comment on Entailment Regimes (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: Minor typos in SHACL spec (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: on sh:qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: information lacking for closed issues (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: wrong name for exactly one (Wednesday, 15 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Typo in nodeKind (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: SHACL draft ready for review (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: strange different wording for what is probably the same thing (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: missing normative reference in SHACL document (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: proposed test case for SHACL (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: editorial problem in example in 6.1 (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: SHACL draft ready for review (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: probably-editorial issue in Section 6.2.3.2 - no longer editorial (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: $this in Aggregations (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: editorial problem in example in 6.1 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: editorial problem in example in 6.1 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: SHACL draft ready for review (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: probably-editorial issue in Section 6.2.3.2 - no longer editorial (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: probably-editorial issue in Section 6.2.3.2 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• New SHACL Working Draft 2017-02-02 (Thursday, 2 February)

Irene Polikoff

• Re: limiting ill-formed nodes in SHACL (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: Formal objection to removing features from node shapes (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: Comments on Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C Editor's Draft 22 February 2017 (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: Formal objection to removing features from node shapes (Saturday, 25 February)
• Re: Formal objection on syntax checking in SHACL (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Monday, 20 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (shapes portion) (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: information lacking for closed issues (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: $this in Aggregations (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Saturday, 4 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Saturday, 4 February)

Olivier Corby

• target and property shape (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: Review of SHACL document (2) (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Review of SHACL document (2) (Monday, 20 February)
• SHACL Core validator (Thursday, 9 February)
• Typo in nodeKind (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint (Wednesday, 8 February)
• qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: SHACL draft ready for review (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: SHACL draft ready for review (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: SHACL draft ready for review (Tuesday, 7 February)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• Re: on value (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (Monday, 27 February)
• Re: Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (Sunday, 26 February)
• limiting ill-formed nodes in SHACL (Sunday, 26 February)
• on value (Sunday, 26 February)
• Comments on Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C Editor's Draft 22 February 2017 (Saturday, 25 February)
• Formal objection on closing of ISSUE-92 (Saturday, 25 February)
• Formal objection to removing features from node shapes (Saturday, 25 February)
• on compliance testing for SHACL (Thursday, 23 February)
• status of SHACL-SPARQL (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Thursday, 23 February)
• Formal objection on syntax checking in SHACL (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Thursday, 23 February)
• notice of non-implementation (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Thursday, 23 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Wednesday, 22 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: handling recursive shapes in SHACL (Tuesday, 21 February)
• Re: handling recursive shapes in SHACL (Tuesday, 21 February)
• handling recursive shapes in SHACL (Monday, 20 February)
• syntax checking for SHACL (Monday, 20 February)
• SHACL syntax in SHACL (Sunday, 19 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Friday, 17 February)
• Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: information lacking for closed issues (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: on sh:qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Thursday, 16 February)
• Re: wrong name for exactly one (Thursday, 16 February)
• on sh:qualifiedValueShapesDisjoint (Wednesday, 15 February)
• wrong name for exactly one (Tuesday, 14 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Monday, 13 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Friday, 10 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: information lacking for closed issues (Thursday, 9 February)
• information lacking for closed issues (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (shapes portion) (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: strange different wording for what is probably the same thing (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: behaviour of ASK-based validators (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Thursday, 9 February)
• missing normative reference in SHACL document (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: proposed test case for SHACL (Thursday, 9 February)
• Re: editorial problem in example in 6.1 (Thursday, 9 February)
• loss of functionality (Thursday, 9 February)
• proposed test case for SHACL (Thursday, 9 February)
• alternative definition of SHACL (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• behaviour of ASK-based validators (Wednesday, 8 February)
• strange different wording for what is probably the same thing (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: $this in Aggregations (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: probably-editorial issue in Section 6.2.3.2 - no longer editorial (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: probably-editorial issue in Section 6.2.3.2 - no longer editorial (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: editorial problem in example in 6.1 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: $this in Aggregations (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: editorial problem in example in 6.1 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• editorial problem in example in 6.1 (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Wednesday, 8 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Union operations on graphs (Tuesday, 7 February)
• behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: probably-editorial issue in Section 6.2.3.2 - no longer editorial (Tuesday, 7 February)
• probably-editorial issue in Section 6.2.3.2 (Tuesday, 7 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Monday, 6 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Sunday, 5 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Saturday, 4 February)
• Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Saturday, 4 February)
• Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02 (Saturday, 4 February)

Petr Křemen

• [ANN] Released JOPA 0.9.2 - Efficient Open-source Java Library to edit RDF/OWL Ontologies (Thursday, 23 February)

Simon Spero

• Re: SHACL for OWL2 (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: SHACL for OWL2 (Thursday, 23 February)

Simon Steyskal

• Re: SHACL for OWL2 (Friday, 24 February)

Stephane Fellah

• Re: SHACL for OWL2 (Friday, 24 February)
• Re: SHACL for OWL2 (Thursday, 23 February)
• SHACL for OWL2 (Thursday, 23 February)

Svensson, Lars

• RE: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Tuesday, 21 February)
• RE: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: Comment on Entailment Regimes (Monday, 20 February)
• RE: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: Minor typos in SHACL spec (Friday, 17 February)
• RE: Comment on Entailment Regimes (Friday, 17 February)
• Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs (Thursday, 16 February)
• Minor typos in SHACL spec (Thursday, 16 February)
• Comment on Entailment Regimes (Thursday, 16 February)

Last message date: Tuesday, 28 February 2017 00:17:54 UTC