public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from April 2015 by date

Thursday, 30 April 2015

• Question on closed shapes Holger Knublauch
• Re: vote for supporting "closed shapes" Ted Thibodeau Jr
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 23 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-23: sh:ShapeClass? Karen Coyle
• Re: Regrets for 2015-04-30 Telecon Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Regrets for 2015-04-30 Telecon Simon Steyskal
• Re: ISSUE-23: sh:ShapeClass? Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 29 April 2015

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 30 April 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 30 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: vote for supporting "closed shapes" Arthur Ryman
• Re: ISSUE-23: A proposal to not mingle shapes and classes Michel Dumontier
• Re: vote for supporting "closed shapes" Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: ISSUE-23: A proposal to not mingle shapes and classes Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-23: A proposal to not mingle shapes and classes Michel Dumontier
• Re: ISSUE-23: A proposal to not mingle shapes and classes Holger Knublauch
• ISSUE-23: A proposal to not mingle shapes and classes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Irene Polikoff
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 28 April 2015

• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 23 April 2015 Arthur Ryman
• Re: Comments on Shacl-sparql Specification Arthur Ryman
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Simon Steyskal
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Dimitris Kontokostas
• Regrets for 2015-04-30 Telecon Arthur Ryman
• shapes-ISSUE-48 (scope-of-shape): How do we limit the scope for a shape? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Monday, 27 April 2015

• Re: Comments on Shacl-sparql Specification Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Editorial Comments on Shacl-Sparql Spec Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Errors/Typos in Shacl-Sparql Spec. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Errors/Typos in Shacl-Sparql Spec. Arthur Ryman
• Editorial Comments on Shacl-Sparql Spec Arthur Ryman
• Comments on Shacl-sparql Specification Arthur Ryman
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Sunday, 26 April 2015

• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier
• DCMI requirements Karen Coyle
• Re: Language Tags Requirement Karen Coyle
• Re: Language Tags Requirement Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Language Tags Requirement Holger Knublauch
• Re: Constraints on classes Irene Polikoff
• Re: Language Tags Requirement Karen Coyle

Saturday, 25 April 2015

• Re: Language Tags Requirement Holger Knublauch
• Re: Constraints on classes Holger Knublauch
• Re: Constraints on classes Karen Coyle
• Re: Language Tags Requirement Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Constraints on classes Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier

Friday, 24 April 2015

• Re: Language Tags Requirement Holger Knublauch
• Re: Language Tags Requirement Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 23 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Constraints on classes Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Constraints on classes Karen Coyle
• Re: Constraints on classes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Constraints on classes Karen Coyle
• Re: Constraints on classes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Constraints on classes Karen Coyle
• Language Tags Requirement Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Michel Dumontier

Thursday, 23 April 2015

• ISSUE-23: A specific proposal Holger Knublauch
• User Story S40 Updated Arthur Ryman
• shapes-ISSUE-47 (sparqling-shape-graph): Can SPARQL-based constraints access the shape graph, and how? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ACTION-20: Update description of 2.6.11 expressivity: closed shapes to address concerns expressed to date RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ACTION-19: Add requirement(s) for rdf collections to address issue-4 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: proposal for SHACL based on SPARQL Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 22 April 2015

• Re: proposal for SHACL based on SPARQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: proposal for SHACL based on SPARQL Ted Thibodeau Jr
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 23 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-46 (RDF lists): Support for RDF Collections? [Requirements] Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-46 (RDF lists): Support for RDF Collections? [Requirements] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Sunday, 19 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 18 April 2015

• Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-35 per Jose's suggestion Simon Steyskal

Friday, 17 April 2015

• Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-35 per Jose's suggestion Arthur Ryman
• PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-35 per Jose's suggestion Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: Connection Issues Simon Steyskal
• Connection Issues Simon Steyskal
• proposal for SHACL based on SPARQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language [SHACL Spec] Simon Steyskal
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Thursday, 16 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Fwd: Re: ShEx questionnaire (was Re: RDF validation questionnaire) Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 16 April 2015 Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 16 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF validation questionnaire Ted Thibodeau Jr

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• SHACL Use Cases and Requirements FPWD Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 16 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Simon Steyskal
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] Simon Steyskal
• shapes-ISSUE-44 (Graph dependencies): How to express dependencies between graphs [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-36 (Value type facet): Naming of value type facet [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Monday, 13 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE-1: Inferencing and current databases Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 12 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Saturday, 11 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle

Friday, 10 April 2015

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 2 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes WG mintues for 9 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Incorrect W3C Team Comment links in ShEx Member Submission Arthur Ryman
• Re: ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 9 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 Arthur Ryman
• shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 Arthur Ryman
• Re: S40 Describing Inline Content versus References Karen Coyle
• Re: Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 Karen Coyle
• ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References Arthur Ryman
• Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 Arthur Ryman
• S40 Describing Inline Content versus References Arthur Ryman
• shapes-ACTION-18: Advance discussion of s40 by 16 april 2015 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ACTION-17: Publish the ucr by 14 april 2015 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Considering turning the F2F3 into a virtual meeting Solbrig, Harold R.
• SPARQL in SHACL (was Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec]) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 9 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 2 April 2015 Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 9 April 2015 Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 9 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Considering turning the F2F3 into a virtual meeting Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-39 (Value shape facet): Naming of value shape facet [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-38 (Cardinality facet): Naming of cardinality facets [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 2 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 2 April 2015 Arthur Ryman
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 2 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

• European Data Forum (EDF 2015) - 2nd Call for contributions: Deadline 15 May 2015 Axel Polleres
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Arthur Ryman
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-40 (Property Cardinality): sh:min/max constrains properties, not values Karen Coyle
• Considering turning the F2F3 into a virtual meeting Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-42 (sh:notEqual): Adding sh:notEqual to potential datatype properties? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-41 (property paths (sh:path?)): Using property paths to refer to values/types? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-38 (Cardinality facet): Naming of cardinality facets [SHACL Spec] Simon Steyskal
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Simon Steyskal
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-40 (Property Cardinality): sh:min/max constrains properties, not values Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-40 (Property Cardinality): sh:min/max constrains properties, not values Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-40 (Property Cardinality): sh:min/max constrains properties, not values Karen Coyle
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-38 (Cardinality facet): Naming of cardinality facets [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-40 (Property Cardinality): sh:min/max constrains properties, not values Holger Knublauch
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-38 (Cardinality facet): Naming of cardinality facets [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-36 (Value type facet): Naming of value type facet [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Monday, 6 April 2015

• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Arthur Ryman

Sunday, 5 April 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-39 (Value shape facet): Naming of value shape facet [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• shapes-ISSUE-40 (Property Cardinality): sh:min/max constrains properties, not values RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Karen Coyle

Saturday, 4 April 2015

• Re: Compilation of WG resolutions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Compilation of WG resolutions Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-38 (Cardinality facet): Naming of cardinality facets [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-39 (Value shape facet): Naming of value shape facet [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-39 (Value shape facet): Naming of value shape facet [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: Compilation of WG resolutions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Compilation of WG resolutions Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-39 (Value shape facet): Naming of value shape facet [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-36 (Value type facet): Naming of value type facet [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-36 (Value type facet): Naming of value type facet [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Friday, 3 April 2015

• Re: Compilation of WG resolutions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Compilation of WG resolutions Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-36 (Value type facet): Naming of value type facet [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak

Thursday, 2 April 2015

• shapes-ISSUE-39 (Value shape facet): Naming of value shape facet [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-38 (Cardinality facet): Naming of cardinality facets [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-37 (Node kind facet): Naming of node kind facet [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-36 (Value type facet): Naming of value type facet [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-26 (invoke-highlevel): Can extensions invoke the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-34 (OrConstraint): 2 disjuncts at a time in sh:OrConstraint [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-26 (invoke-highlevel): Can extensions invoke the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-28 (macros): Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-26 (invoke-highlevel): Can extensions invoke the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-22 (recursion): Treatment of recursive shape definitions [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• shapes-ISSUE-35 (labra): Language-tags [Requirements] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• asymmetrical WG fare Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-22 (recursion): Treatment of recursive shape definitions [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Karen Coyle
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Test cases format Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-33 (Simonstey): Shifting section "Shape Selection" to introduction? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-34 (OrConstraint): 2 disjuncts at a time in sh:OrConstraint [SHACL Spec] Simon Steyskal
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-34 (OrConstraint): 2 disjuncts at a time in sh:OrConstraint [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: Test cases format Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-33 (Simonstey): Shifting section "Shape Selection" to introduction? [SHACL Spec] Simon Steyskal
• shapes-ISSUE-34 (OrConstraint): 2 disjuncts at a time in sh:OrConstraint [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Test cases format Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Test cases format Holger Knublauch
• Re: Test cases format Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Test cases format Holger Knublauch
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-33 (Simonstey): Shifting section "Shape Selection" to introduction? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

• Re: Some remarks on the draft Primer doc Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 2 April 2015 Holger Knublauch
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Arthur Ryman
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Iovka Boneva
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-32 (SHACL+-): SHACL = high-level + extensions ? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-32 (SHACL+-): SHACL = high-level + extensions ? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-33 (shape selection): Shifting section "Shape Selection" to introduction? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 2 April 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 26 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-33 (shape selection): Shifting section "Shape Selection" to introduction? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ISSUE-33 (Simonstey): Shifting section "Shape Selection" to introduction? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Static Analysis of SHACL [Was Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL] Jerven Tjalling Bolleman
• Some remarks on the draft Primer doc Paul Hermans
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Iovka Boneva
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary Holger Knublauch

Last message date: Thursday, 30 April 2015 23:48:05 UTC