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

Anamitra Bhattacharyya

• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Thursday, 12 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Thursday, 12 March)

Arnaud Le Hors

• F2F3 to be in Waterloo (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: I raised some issues (Monday, 30 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 March 2015 (Thursday, 26 March)
• STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 19 March 2015 (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: descriptions of SHACL proposal documents (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: status of working group documents (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of SPARQL ASK constraints? (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: documents produced by working group members (Thursday, 19 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 March 2015 (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Friday, 13 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 March 2015 (Friday, 13 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 March 2015 (Thursday, 12 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 March 2015 (Thursday, 12 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 March 2015 (Thursday, 12 March)
• S17: Specify subsets of data (Wednesday, 11 March)
• Re: Fw: Doodle: Link for poll "RDF Data Shapes WG F2F3" (Wednesday, 11 March)
• Re: Proposal to extend weekly call by 30mn: APPROVED (Wednesday, 11 March)
• Fw: Doodle: Link for poll "RDF Data Shapes WG F2F3" (Wednesday, 11 March)
• Re: Proposal to extend weekly call by 30mn (Wednesday, 11 March)
• Proposal to extend weekly call by 30mn (Thursday, 5 March)
• RDF Data Shapes Minutes for 5 March 2015 (Thursday, 5 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 March 2015 (Wednesday, 4 March)
• It's SHACL not SHAQL (Monday, 2 March)

Arthur Ryman

• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of SPARQL ASK constraints? (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Comments on draft #3 (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: New user story: S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: New user story: S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Proposals around SPARQL (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: RDFS entailment mandatory? (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL - examples) (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: SHACL abstract syntax or functional specification (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels (Tuesday, 3 March)

Axel Polleres

• European Data Forum (EDF 2015) - Call for contributions: Deadline 15 May 2015 (Sunday, 1 March)

Dean Allemang

• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)

Dimitris Kontokostas

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) (Friday, 20 March)
• Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels (Monday, 2 March)
• [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• Re: ShEx extensions (was: Re: Implementation feasibility) (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: shacl.shacl.ttl (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Eric's description of core SHACL (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Monday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Friday, 6 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Friday, 6 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Monday, 2 March)

Holger Knublauch

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: Naming of cardinality properties (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-33: Language Tags [Shacl-Req] (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Sunday, 29 March)
• Naming of cardinality properties (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Friday, 27 March)
• Value type constraints (Friday, 27 March)
• Suggestion: sh:nodeType -> sh:nodeKind (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Implementations without SPARQL (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Comments on draft #3 (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Comments on draft #3 (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: shacl.shacl.ttl (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL (Friday, 20 March)
• Follow-up on Michel's comment (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of SPARQL ASK constraints? (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Comments on draft #3 (Thursday, 19 March)
• Core or Lite? (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: documents produced by working group members (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Anyone in support of SPARQL ASK constraints? (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Thursday, 12 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Thursday, 12 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Monday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Monday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Monday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Sunday, 8 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Friday, 6 March)
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec (Friday, 6 March)
• Sections 1 and 2 of SHACL Spec (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: Question of organization of Requirements wiki page (Thursday, 5 March)
• RDFS entailment mandatory? (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Scoping of constraints (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) (Wednesday, 4 March)
• xsd:anyURI syntax (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL - examples) (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• sh:sparqlFilter (was: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated (Sunday, 1 March)
• Changed link to SHACL ED (Sunday, 1 March)

Iovka Boneva

• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Regrets for weekly calls (Friday, 13 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Monday, 2 March)

Irene Polikoff

• Re: Value type constraints (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Friday, 13 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)

Jerven Tjalling Bolleman

• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Wednesday, 25 March)

Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

• Re: Value type constraints (Monday, 30 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-33: Language Tags [Shacl-Req] (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Suggestion: sh:nodeType -> sh:nodeKind (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• SHACL language (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: SHACL specification document (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: SHACL abstract syntax or functional specification (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• SHACL abstract syntax or functional specification (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)

Karen Coyle

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: Naming of cardinality properties (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Thursday, 26 March)
• What we voted on at the f2f (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Comments on draft #3 (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Comments on draft #3 (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Comments on draft #3 (Saturday, 21 March)
• shacl.shacl.ttl (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: UCR FPWD (ready) & regrets for telco today (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Comments on draft #3 (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Comments on Draft #2 (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: Comments on Draft (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Comments on Draft (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: SHACL specification document (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Friday, 13 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Friday, 13 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 March 2015 (Thursday, 12 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Monday, 9 March)
• Re: New user story: S41 Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Sunday, 1 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)

Michel Dumontier

• Re: Value type constraints (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Naming of cardinality properties (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment (Friday, 20 March)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• descriptions of SHACL proposal documents (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• status of working group documents (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f (Tuesday, 24 March)
• What was in CONSTRAINTS (was Re: Core or Lite?) (Tuesday, 24 March)
• recursive shapes in SHACL (Tuesday, 24 March)
• What the state of Shape Expressions means to the working group (Monday, 23 March)
• The Various Versions of Shape Expressions (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Sunday, 22 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Saturday, 21 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL (Friday, 20 March)
• Looking at the current proposals for SHACL (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: documents produced by working group members (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• documents produced by working group members (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 March 2015 (Wednesday, 18 March)
• Re: Eric's description of core SHACL (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Eric's description of core SHACL (Tuesday, 17 March)
• Re: SHACL specification document (Monday, 16 March)
• recursive shapes (and negation) (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Monday, 16 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Sunday, 15 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Saturday, 14 March)
• SHACL specification document (Saturday, 14 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Friday, 13 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Friday, 13 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 March 2015 (Friday, 13 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 March 2015 (Thursday, 12 March)
• How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Thursday, 12 March)
• Re: Fw: Doodle: Link for poll "RDF Data Shapes WG F2F3" (Wednesday, 11 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Monday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Saturday, 7 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Friday, 6 March)
• SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Friday, 6 March)
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec (Friday, 6 March)
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec (Friday, 6 March)
• differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: New user story: S41 Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL - examples (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Tuesday, 3 March)
• a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHACL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Sunday, 1 March)

RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

• shapes-ISSUE-32 (SHACL+-): SHACL = high-level + extensions ? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-28 (macros): Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-26 (invoke-highlevel): Can extensions invoke the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-22 (recursion): Treatment of recursive shape definitions [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• shapes-ACTION-16: Set up doodle poll for date/location of next f2f (Thursday, 5 March)

Richard Cyganiak

• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (Tuesday, 31 March)
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 30 March)
• Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Monday, 30 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 29 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 28 March)
• I raised some issues (Saturday, 28 March)
• Re: ShEx extensions (Saturday, 28 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Saturday, 28 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Saturday, 28 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Suggestion: sh:nodeType -> sh:nodeKind (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Value type constraints (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? (Friday, 27 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL (Thursday, 26 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL (Wednesday, 25 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Tuesday, 24 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Implementation feasibility (Monday, 23 March)
• ShEx extensions (was: Re: Implementation feasibility) (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator (Monday, 23 March)
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: Core or Lite? (Friday, 20 March)
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? (Thursday, 19 March)
• Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: New user story: S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL (Thursday, 19 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 March 2015 (Thursday, 12 March)
• New user story: S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON (Thursday, 12 March)
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? (Monday, 9 March)
• Proposals around SPARQL (Monday, 9 March)
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec (Thursday, 5 March)
• Question of organization of Requirements wiki page (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: New user story: S41 Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• New user story: S41 Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel (Thursday, 5 March)
• Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints (Thursday, 5 March)
• (no subject) (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (Wednesday, 4 March)
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) (Tuesday, 3 March)
• “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Tuesday, 3 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL (Monday, 2 March)
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case (Monday, 2 March)
• The NoSPARQL use case (Sunday, 1 March)

Simon Steyskal

• Re: Value type constraints (Friday, 27 March)
• UCR FPWD (ready) & regrets for telco today (Thursday, 19 March)

Last message date: Tuesday, 31 March 2015 23:14:59 UTC