Properties v classes in validation
ISSUE-51: Updated draft and proposal
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 27 August 2015
Regrets
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 27 August 2015
my vote on ISSUE-70
probable regrets for Thursday
Validation - positive results
ISSUE-70: Proposed clean up of sh:defaultValueType
RDF Data Shapes Minutes for 20 August 2015
AW: Re: shapes-ISSUE-83 (multiple sh:qualifiedValueShapes): How should multiple definitions of sh:qualifiedValueShape of a property constraint be treated? [SHACL Spec]
shapes-ISSUE-83 (multiple sh:qualifiedValueShapes): How should multiple definitions of sh:qualifiedValueShape of a property constraint be treated? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-83 (multiple sh:qualifiedValueShapes): How should multiple definitions of sh:qualifiedValueShape of a property constraint be treated? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-83 (multiple sh:qualifiedValueShapes): How should multiple definitions of sh:qualifiedValueShape of a property constraint be treated? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-83 (multiple sh:qualifiedValueShapes): How should multiple definitions of sh:qualifiedValueShape of a property constraint be treated? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-83 (multiple sh:qualifiedValueShapes): How should multiple definitions of sh:qualifiedValueShape of a property constraint be treated? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-83 (multiple sh:qualifiedValueShapes): How should multiple definitions of sh:qualifiedValueShape of a property constraint be treated? [SHACL Spec]
AW: reviewing the FPWD
reviewing the FPWD
shapes-ACTION-28: Review http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/
RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015
- Re: RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015
- Re: RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015
- Re: RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015
shapes-ISSUE-82 (Unique language): Shall SHACL Core include support for unique language constraints? [SHACL Spec]
shapes-ISSUE-81 (Property pair constraints): Shall SHACL Core include support for disjoint properties and other property pair constraints? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-81 (Property pair constraints): Shall SHACL Core include support for disjoint properties and other property pair constraints? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-81 (Property pair constraints): Shall SHACL Core include support for disjoint properties and other property pair constraints? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-81 (Property pair constraints): Shall SHACL Core include support for disjoint properties and other property pair constraints? [SHACL Spec]
sh:allowedValues and skos:Collection
AW: Re: what is the proposal to publish? (I.e, what needs to be reviewed)
what is the proposal to publish? (I.e, what needs to be reviewed)
nomenclature in current document - ISSUE-65
ISSUE-58: Added sh:ignoredProperties to sh:ClosedShapeConstraint
ISSUE-72: sh:qualifiedValueShape added to spec
shapes-ISSUE-80 (Scheme URIs): Constraint to limit IRIs against scheme/namespace, possibly with dereferencing [SHACL Spec]
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 13 August 2015
shapes-ISSUE-79 (Validation functions): Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-79 (Validation functions): Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-79 (Validation functions): Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-79 (Validation functions): Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-79 (Validation functions): Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration [SHACL Spec]
RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 13 August 215
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 6 August 2015
RE: Update and opportunities with SHACL
- RE: Update and opportunities with SHACL
- Re: Update and opportunities with SHACL
ISSUE-51: Generalized sh:severity
Re: shapes-ISSUE-74 (SPARQL endpoint support): Should SHACL support vallidating RDF graphs accessible via unmodified SPARQL endpoints [SHACL Spec]
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 6 August 2015
shapes-ISSUE-78 (sh:abstract): Should SHACL support marking classes as abstract [SHACL Spec]
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-32 as done
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-3 and ISSUE-44
modelling using SHACL - a bad idea - ISSUE-23
A simpler proposal for reporting SHACL results - ISSUE-51
Updated proposal to close ISSUE-51 based on Turtle file in ISSUE-51 branch
Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- RE: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- RE: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- RE: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints
- Re: SKOS concept scheme URIs as values for constraints