public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from February 2015 by author

Arnaud Le Hors

• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 26 February 2015 (Friday, 27 February)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 February 2015 (was Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 February 2015) (Thursday, 26 February)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 February 2015 (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG F2F2 Minutes (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG F2F2 Minutes (Tuesday, 24 February)
• RDF Data Shapes WG F2F2 Minutes (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: hosting F2F3 - an unusual possibility (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? NO, Please STOP this now. (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Wednesday, 11 February)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Wednesday, 11 February)
• F2F draft agenda (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Issues with your User Stories for the RDF Data Shapes WG (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Issue with your User Story for the RDF Data Shapes WG (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Issues with your User Stories for the RDF Data Shapes WG (Tuesday, 10 February)
• RDF Data Shapes Minutes for 5 February 2015 (Friday, 6 February)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 February 2015 (Wednesday, 4 February)

Arthur Ryman

• Probable Regrets for Telecon Today (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: Working Group Requirements and Shapes - new User Story S40 (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: hosting F2F3 - an unusual possibility (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: hosting F2F3 (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: SHACL madness (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Boa (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Boa (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Regrets for today's Telecon (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: Introduction (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) (Thursday, 5 February)

Dean Allemang

• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: Issues with your User Stories for the RDF Data Shapes WG (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption (Wednesday, 4 February)

Dimitris Kontokostas

• User Story 34 changed (was: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details) (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: [SHAQL Feedback] SPARQL & definition/result coupling (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details (Friday, 27 February)
• [SHAQL Feedback] SPARQL & definition/result coupling (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details (Thursday, 26 February)
• Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Saturday, 21 February)
• Req 2.7.4 Nested Constraint Macros (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: F2F draft agenda (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: F2F draft agenda (Wednesday, 11 February)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: F2F draft agenda (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: ripping classes out of requirements in 2.5 (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: reworded requirements for section 3 Complex Constraints (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs (Friday, 6 February)
• another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs (Friday, 6 February)
• reworded Requirements wiki referencing "shapes" instead of "classes" (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• shapes distinct from classes docs (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality (Wednesday, 4 February)

Holger Knublauch

• Re: [SHAQL Feedback] SPARQL & definition/result coupling (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated (Friday, 27 February)
• Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 February 2015 (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Differing Visions of SHACL (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Semantics for LDOM (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what feature is required (Monday, 16 February)
• I think we need Use Cases (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what feature is required (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Shape Selectors (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: Shape Selectors (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: Shape Selectors (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: reworded requirements for section 3 Complex Constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Shape Selectors (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: reworded requirements for section 3 Complex Constraints (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs (Thursday, 5 February)
• "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Monday, 2 February)
• Re: S25: Primary Keys with URI Patterns (Monday, 2 February)
• Re: S30: PROV Constraints (Monday, 2 February)
• Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption (Monday, 2 February)

Iovka Boneva

• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Monday, 23 February)
• Introduction (Tuesday, 10 February)

Irene Polikoff

• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Shape Selectors (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Saturday, 7 February)
• RE: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• RE: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• RE: Closing of open (user story) issues (Wednesday, 4 February)
• RE: Closing of open (user story) issues (Tuesday, 3 February)

Jerven Bolleman

• Re: shapes and classes: different (Monday, 2 February)

Jerven Tjalling Bolleman

• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) (Monday, 16 February)
• Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) (Monday, 16 February)

Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: question about Shape Expressions (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: New User Story: Validating and describing linked data portals (Monday, 2 February)
• Re: New User Story: Validating and describing linked data portals (Monday, 2 February)

Karen Coyle

• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG F2F2 Minutes (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 22 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Saturday, 21 February)
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Shape Selectors (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Shape Selectors (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: Shape Selectors (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: ripping classes out of requirements in 2.5 (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Multiple-class shapes (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Tuesday, 3 February)

Michel Dumontier

• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: SHACL madness (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Boa (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Boa (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)

Nicholas.Car@csiro.au

• Introducing Nick (Monday, 23 February)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Wednesday, 25 February)
• regrets: Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 February 2015 (Wednesday, 25 February)
• differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Wednesday, 25 February)
• different Shape Expression accounts (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions (Tuesday, 24 February)
• recursive shapes in shape expressions (Saturday, 21 February)
• hosting F2F3 - an unusual possibility (Thursday, 19 February)
• hosting F2F3 (Thursday, 19 February)
• Differing Visions of SHACL (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: shapes-ACTION-14: Fix up property datatype in a way that doesn't confuse the wiki (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: question about Shape Expressions (Thursday, 19 February)
• Semantics for LDOM (Thursday, 19 February)
• question about Shape Expressions (Thursday, 19 February)
• SHACL madness (Thursday, 19 February)
• CONSTRAINTS: A proposal for RDF Data Shapes (Wednesday, 18 February)
• UC&R UC1 (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: status of Editors' Draft of UC&R (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Scope and Motivation for UC&R (Tuesday, 17 February)
• status of Editors' Draft of UC&R (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Normativeness of Use Cases document (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Working Group Requirements and Shapes (Tuesday, 17 February)
• progress on semantic media wiki (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what feature is required (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction (Thursday, 12 February)
• fundamental issues (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction (Thursday, 12 February)
• replacement for datatype restriction (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: F2F draft agenda (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: Shape Selectors (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: F2F draft agenda (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: using classes to control constraints (Saturday, 7 February)
• using classes to control constraints (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: reworded Requirements wiki referencing "shapes" instead of "classes" (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues (Tuesday, 3 February)
• removing user story S7 (ISSUE-9) (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Monday, 2 February)

RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

• shapes-ACTION-15: Propose a rephrasing of req 2.11.7 (Thursday, 26 February)
• shapes-ISSUE-21 (Shape Expressions?): What is shape expressions? (Tuesday, 24 February)
• shapes-ACTION-14: Fix up property datatype in a way that doesn't confuse the wiki (Thursday, 19 February)
• shapes-ACTION-13: Check tq f2f availability on may 19-21 or 27-29 (Thursday, 19 February)
• shapes-ACTION-12: Merge 17 and 18 (Tuesday, 17 February)
• shapes-ACTION-11: Revise based on his ideas; we'll review and accept/or not (Tuesday, 17 February)
• shapes-ACTION-10: - propose revision in wiki (Tuesday, 17 February)

Richard Cyganiak

• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details (Thursday, 26 February)
• Hosting F2F meetings in Raleigh, NC (Thursday, 26 February)
• Proposed revision of user story S14: Object Reconciliation (Wednesday, 25 February)
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: fundamental issues (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Introduction (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: shapes and classes: different (Thursday, 5 February)
• Introduction (Tuesday, 3 February)

Sandro Hawke

• Re: Issue with your User Story for the RDF Data Shapes WG (Tuesday, 10 February)

Simon Steyskal

• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: Scope and Motivation for UC&R (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: status of Editors' Draft of UC&R (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: I think we need Use Cases (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: Re: using classes to control constraints (Thursday, 12 February)
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: Feedback on UC&R draft abstract (Thursday, 5 February)
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues (Wednesday, 4 February)
• Closing of open (user story) issues (Tuesday, 3 February)
• S30: PROV Constraints (Monday, 2 February)
• Re: New User Story: Validating and describing linked data portals (Monday, 2 February)

Simon.Cox@csiro.au

• RE: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)
• RE: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Monday, 9 February)

Solbrig, Harold R.

• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: Two Standards ? (Friday, 13 February)

Steve Speicher

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Feedback on UC&R draft abstract (Thursday, 5 February)

Last message date: Saturday, 28 February 2015 09:52:10 UTC