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

Saturday, 28 February 2015

• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 27 February 2015

• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 26 February 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• User Story 34 changed (was: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [SHAQL Feedback] SPARQL & definition/result coupling Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: [SHAQL Feedback] SPARQL & definition/result coupling Holger Knublauch
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details Dimitris Kontokostas
• [SHAQL Feedback] SPARQL & definition/result coupling Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated Holger Knublauch
• Re: Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 26 February 2015

• Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated Holger Knublauch
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details Holger Knublauch
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details Richard Cyganiak
• shapes-ACTION-15: Propose a rephrasing of req 2.11.7 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details Dimitris Kontokostas
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 February 2015 (was Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 February 2015) Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details Richard Cyganiak
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Iovka Boneva
• Probable Regrets for Telecon Today Arthur Ryman
• Hosting F2F meetings in Raleigh, NC Richard Cyganiak
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Simon Steyskal
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 February 2015 Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• regrets: Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 February 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 25 February 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions Karen Coyle
• differing accounts of Shape Expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG F2F2 Minutes Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• different Shape Expression accounts Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Proposed revision of user story S14: Object Reconciliation Richard Cyganiak
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Iovka Boneva

Tuesday, 24 February 2015

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG F2F2 Minutes Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG F2F2 Minutes Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shapes WG F2F2 Minutes Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Iovka Boneva
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Iovka Boneva
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ISSUE-21 (Shape Expressions?): What is shape expressions? RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Iovka Boneva

Monday, 23 February 2015

• Introducing Nick Nicholas.Car@csiro.au

Tuesday, 24 February 2015

• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Monday, 23 February 2015

• Re: recursive shapes in shape expressions Iovka Boneva
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Karen Coyle

Sunday, 22 February 2015

• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption Holger Knublauch
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? Karen Coyle
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Karen Coyle
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption Irene Polikoff
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff

Saturday, 21 February 2015

• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption Arthur Ryman
• recursive shapes in shape expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Arthur Ryman
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? Arthur Ryman
• Re: Working Group Requirements and Shapes - new User Story S40 Arthur Ryman
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Karen Coyle
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Dimitris Kontokostas

Friday, 20 February 2015

• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Michel Dumontier
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• Re: hosting F2F3 - an unusual possibility Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Richard Cyganiak
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Michel Dumontier
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Solbrig, Harold R.
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Arthur Ryman
• Re: hosting F2F3 - an unusual possibility Arthur Ryman
• Re: hosting F2F3 Arthur Ryman

Thursday, 19 February 2015

• Re: Differing Visions of SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? Holger Knublauch
• hosting F2F3 - an unusual possibility Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• hosting F2F3 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Differing Visions of SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ACTION-14: Fix up property datatype in a way that doesn't confuse the wiki Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? Arthur Ryman
• Re: Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• shapes-ACTION-14: Fix up property datatype in a way that doesn't confuse the wiki RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ACTION-13: Check tq f2f availability on may 19-21 or 27-29 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Use cases for RDF Datasets in shape validation? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption Irene Polikoff
• Re: question about Shape Expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: question about Shape Expressions Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption Holger Knublauch
• Re: Semantics for LDOM Holger Knublauch
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption Arthur Ryman
• Semantics for LDOM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL madness Arthur Ryman
• question about Shape Expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL madness Michel Dumontier
• SHACL madness Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Boa Michel Dumontier

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

• Re: Boa Arthur Ryman
• Re: Boa Michel Dumontier
• Boa Arthur Ryman
• CONSTRAINTS: A proposal for RDF Data Shapes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Req 2.7.4 Nested Constraint Macros Dimitris Kontokostas

Tuesday, 17 February 2015

• UC&R UC1 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Scope and Motivation for UC&R Simon Steyskal
• Re: status of Editors' Draft of UC&R Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Scope and Motivation for UC&R Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: status of Editors' Draft of UC&R Simon Steyskal
• status of Editors' Draft of UC&R Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Normativeness of Use Cases document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ACTION-12: Merge 17 and 18 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ACTION-11: Revise based on his ideas; we'll review and accept/or not RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ACTION-10: - propose revision in wiki RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Working Group Requirements and Shapes Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• progress on semantic media wiki Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: I think we need Use Cases Simon Steyskal
• Re: fundamental issues Holger Knublauch

Monday, 16 February 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what feature is required Holger Knublauch
• I think we need Use Cases Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what feature is required Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) Irene Polikoff
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) Jerven Tjalling Bolleman
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) Karen Coyle
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) Jerven Tjalling Bolleman
• Re: Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) Karen Coyle
• Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local) Jerven Tjalling Bolleman
• Re: fundamental issues Dimitris Kontokostas

Sunday, 15 February 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what feature is required Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 14 February 2015

• Re: fundamental issues Karen Coyle
• Re: fundamental issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Two Standards ? NO, Please STOP this now. Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: fundamental issues Holger Knublauch
• Re: fundamental issues Karen Coyle
• Re: Two Standards ? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Two Standards ? Michel Dumontier
• Re: Two Standards ? Holger Knublauch
• Re: fundamental issues Irene Polikoff
• Re: Two Standards ? Michel Dumontier
• Re: Two Standards ? Karen Coyle
• Re: Two Standards ? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Two Standards ? Holger Knublauch
• Re: fundamental issues Karen Coyle

Friday, 13 February 2015

• Re: Two Standards ? Michel Dumontier
• Re: Two Standards ? Michel Dumontier
• Re: Two Standards ? Solbrig, Harold R.
• Re: Two Standards ? Irene Polikoff
• Re: Two Standards ? Solbrig, Harold R.
• Re: Two Standards ? Michel Dumontier
• Re: Two Standards ? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Two Standards ? Michel Dumontier
• Re: Two Standards ? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Two Standards ? Dean Allemang
• Re: Two Standards ? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: fundamental issues Richard Cyganiak
• Re: fundamental issues Richard Cyganiak
• Re: fundamental issues Karen Coyle
• Re: fundamental issues Irene Polikoff
• Re: Shape Selectors Irene Polikoff
• Re: fundamental issues Karen Coyle
• Re: Shape Selectors Karen Coyle
• Re: fundamental issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: fundamental issues Irene Polikoff
• Re: fundamental issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: fundamental issues Irene Polikoff
• Re: Two Standards ? Dean Allemang
• Two Standards ? Holger Knublauch
• Re: fundamental issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Shape Selectors Holger Knublauch
• Re: fundamental issues Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 12 February 2015

• Re: replacement for datatype restriction Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Holger Knublauch
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction Holger Knublauch
• fundamental issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: replacement for datatype restriction Eric Prud'hommeaux
• replacement for datatype restriction Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values Dean Allemang
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values Irene Polikoff
• Regrets for today's Telecon Arthur Ryman
• Re: Issues with your User Stories for the RDF Data Shapes WG Dean Allemang
• Re: Re: using classes to control constraints Simon Steyskal
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values Dean Allemang
• Re: using classes to control constraints Michel Dumontier
• Re: Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: Shape Selectors Karen Coyle
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Karen Coyle
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: Shape Selectors Holger Knublauch
• Re: using classes to control constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: using classes to control constraints Michel Dumontier
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) Holger Knublauch
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Karen Coyle

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

• Re: using classes to control constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) Holger Knublauch
• Re: Shape Selectors Karen Coyle
• Re: Shape Selectors Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Holger Knublauch
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Steve Speicher
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: F2F draft agenda Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: F2F draft agenda Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: F2F draft agenda Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Shape Selectors Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: F2F draft agenda Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: F2F draft agenda Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ripping classes out of requirements in 2.5 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Holger Knublauch
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• F2F draft agenda Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: reworded requirements for section 3 Complex Constraints Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

• Shape Selectors Holger Knublauch
• Re: Issue with your User Story for the RDF Data Shapes WG Sandro Hawke
• Issues with your User Stories for the RDF Data Shapes WG Arnaud Le Hors
• Issue with your User Story for the RDF Data Shapes WG Arnaud Le Hors
• Issues with your User Stories for the RDF Data Shapes WG Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: reworded requirements for section 3 Complex Constraints Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: using classes to control constraints Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Introduction Iovka Boneva
• Re: using classes to control constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: what is LDOM? (was Re: example of recursive shapes) Holger Knublauch

Monday, 9 February 2015

• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• RE: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Simon.Cox@csiro.au
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Karen Coyle
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Karen Coyle
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• RE: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Simon.Cox@csiro.au
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Irene Polikoff
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Karen Coyle
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Michel Dumontier
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Karen Coyle

Sunday, 8 February 2015

• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Karen Coyle
• Re: "shape" as a relationship, not a class Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: using classes to control constraints Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 7 February 2015

• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: using classes to control constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: using classes to control constraints Eric Prud'hommeaux
• using classes to control constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) Holger Knublauch
• Re: reworded requirements for section 3 Complex Constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs Holger Knublauch
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs Holger Knublauch

Friday, 6 February 2015

• Re: ripping classes out of requirements in 2.5 Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shapes Minutes for 5 February 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs Simon Steyskal
• another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 5 February 2015

• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs Holger Knublauch
• "shape" as a relationship, not a class Holger Knublauch
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) Holger Knublauch
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes and classes: different Holger Knublauch
• Re: Introduction Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) Arthur Ryman
• Re: Shapes vs Classes (in LDOM) Arthur Ryman
• Re: Feedback on UC&R draft abstract Simon Steyskal
• Feedback on UC&R draft abstract Steve Speicher
• RE: shapes and classes: different Irene Polikoff
• Re: reworded Requirements wiki referencing "shapes" instead of "classes" Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Introduction Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes and classes: different Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: LDOM algorithm (very early draft) Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes and classes: different Karen Coyle
• reworded Requirements wiki referencing "shapes" instead of "classes" Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes and classes: different Karen Coyle
• RE: shapes and classes: different Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes and classes: different Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes and classes: different Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes and classes: different Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes and classes: different Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes and classes: different Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes and classes: different Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes and classes: different Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes and classes: different Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes and classes: different Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: shapes and classes: different Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes and classes: different Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes and classes: different Karen Coyle
• Multiple-class shapes Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes and classes: different Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: shapes distinct from classes docs Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 4 February 2015

• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality Karen Coyle
• shapes distinct from classes docs Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality Holger Knublauch
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality Karen Coyle
• Re: Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption Dean Allemang
• Declarations of Property Min/Max Cardinality Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 February 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues Simon Steyskal
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues Holger Knublauch
• RE: Closing of open (user story) issues Irene Polikoff
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

• RE: Closing of open (user story) issues Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes and classes: different Holger Knublauch
• Re: Closing of open (user story) issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• removing user story S7 (ISSUE-9) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Closing of open (user story) issues Simon Steyskal
• Introduction Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes and classes: different Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes and classes: different Holger Knublauch

Monday, 2 February 2015

• Re: shapes and classes: different Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes and classes: different Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: S25: Primary Keys with URI Patterns Holger Knublauch
• Re: S30: PROV Constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes and classes: different Jerven Bolleman
• S30: PROV Constraints Simon Steyskal
• Re: New User Story: Validating and describing linked data portals Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: New User Story: Validating and describing linked data portals Simon Steyskal
• Re: New User Story: Validating and describing linked data portals Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Requirement: Evolutionary Path to Adoption Holger Knublauch

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