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

Tuesday, 31 March 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• F2F3 to be in Waterloo Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary Holger Knublauch
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Naming of cardinality properties Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors

Monday, 30 March 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: I raised some issues Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary Holger Knublauch
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Value type constraints Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-33: Language Tags [Shacl-Req] Holger Knublauch
• Re: Value type constraints Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• shapes-ISSUE-33: Language Tags [Shacl-Req] Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

Sunday, 29 March 2015

• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Value type constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Value type constraints Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Value type constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: Value type constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: Value type constraints Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Value type constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 28 March 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Richard Cyganiak
• shapes-ISSUE-32 (SHACL+-): SHACL = high-level + extensions ? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• I raised some issues Richard Cyganiak
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-28 (macros): Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-26 (invoke-highlevel): Can extensions invoke the high-level language? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-23 (punning): Shapes, classes and punning [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-22 (recursion): Treatment of recursive shape definitions [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: ShEx extensions Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Value type constraints Richard Cyganiak

Friday, 27 March 2015

• Re: Value type constraints Michel Dumontier
• Re: Value type constraints Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Value type constraints Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Value type constraints Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Value type constraints Irene Polikoff
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Naming of cardinality properties Karen Coyle
• Re: Suggestion: sh:nodeType -> sh:nodeKind Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Value type constraints Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Suggestion: sh:nodeType -> sh:nodeKind Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Value type constraints Simon Steyskal
• Re: Naming of cardinality properties Michel Dumontier
• Naming of cardinality properties Holger Knublauch
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Value type constraints Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 26 March 2015

• Suggestion: sh:nodeType -> sh:nodeKind Holger Knublauch
• Re: ShEx extensions (was: Re: Implementation feasibility) Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Irene Polikoff
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Arthur Ryman
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Karen Coyle
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Irene Polikoff
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Karen Coyle
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL Arnaud Le Hors

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 19 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Irene Polikoff
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Anamitra Bhattacharyya
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Iovka Boneva
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Arthur Ryman
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Arthur Ryman
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Arthur Ryman
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Jerven Tjalling Bolleman
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Core or Lite? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Anamitra Bhattacharyya
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: recursive shapes in SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Irene Polikoff
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementations without SPARQL Arthur Ryman

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

• Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Holger Knublauch
• Re: Core or Lite? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Core or Lite? Holger Knublauch
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Holger Knublauch
• Implementations without SPARQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Core or Lite? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: descriptions of SHACL proposal documents Arnaud Le Hors
• descriptions of SHACL proposal documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: status of working group documents Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• status of working group documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Core or Lite? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Core or Lite? Arnaud Le Hors
• What was in CONSTRAINTS (was Re: Core or Lite?) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Core or Lite? Irene Polikoff
• Re: Core or Lite? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Core or Lite? Irene Polikoff
• Re: Core or Lite? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: What we voted on at the f2f Irene Polikoff
• Re: Core or Lite? Arnaud Le Hors
• What we voted on at the f2f Karen Coyle
• Re: Core or Lite? Irene Polikoff
• Re: Core or Lite? Michel Dumontier
• Re: Core or Lite? Irene Polikoff
• Re: Core or Lite? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Iovka Boneva
• recursive shapes in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Core or Lite? Karen Coyle
• Re: Core or Lite? Arthur Ryman
• Re: Core or Lite? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Core or Lite? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Core or Lite? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Comments on draft #3 Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on draft #3 Holger Knublauch

Monday, 23 March 2015

• Re: Implementation feasibility Karen Coyle
• Re: Core or Lite? Arthur Ryman
• Re: Comments on draft #3 Karen Coyle
• What the state of Shape Expressions means to the working group Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• The Various Versions of Shape Expressions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Implementation feasibility Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Implementation feasibility Richard Cyganiak
• ShEx extensions (was: Re: Implementation feasibility) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Implementation feasibility Holger Knublauch
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Implementation feasibility Irene Polikoff
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Implementation feasibility Irene Polikoff
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Implementation feasibility Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• SHACL language Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Implementation feasibility Holger Knublauch
• Re: Comments on draft #3 Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator Holger Knublauch
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment Holger Knublauch
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementation feasibility Holger Knublauch
• Re: Implementation feasibility Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 22 March 2015

• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Implementation feasibility Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Implementation feasibility Holger Knublauch
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Implementation feasibility Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Implementation feasibility Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Implementation feasibility Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shacl.shacl.ttl Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 21 March 2015

• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Implementation feasibility Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Comments on draft #3 Karen Coyle
• Re: shacl.shacl.ttl Eric Prud'hommeaux
• shacl.shacl.ttl Karen Coyle
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Karen Coyle
• Re: Implementation feasibility Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Implementation feasibility Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Implementation feasibility Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Implementation feasibility Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

Friday, 20 March 2015

• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Arthur Ryman
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax Arthur Ryman
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Iovka Boneva
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Implementation feasibility Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Implementation feasibility Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Implementation feasibility Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Iovka Boneva
• Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Core or Lite? Richard Cyganiak
• Implementation feasibility (was: Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Core or Lite? Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator Holger Knublauch
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment Michel Dumontier
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment Holger Knublauch
• Re: Follow-up on Michel's comment Michel Dumontier
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Irene Polikoff
• Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Follow-up on Michel's comment Holger Knublauch
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Arnaud Le Hors
• Looking at the current proposals for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 19 March 2015

• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Anyone in support of SPARQL ASK constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Comments on draft #3 Holger Knublauch
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Irene Polikoff
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Irene Polikoff
• Core or Lite? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Anyone in support of SPARQL ASK constraints? Arthur Ryman
• Re: Comments on draft #3 Arthur Ryman
• Re: documents produced by working group members Holger Knublauch
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Arthur Ryman
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Anyone in support of SPARQL ASK constraints? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: New user story: S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON Arthur Ryman
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Arthur Ryman
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Arthur Ryman
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Arthur Ryman
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Arthur Ryman
• Re: UCR FPWD (ready) & regrets for telco today Karen Coyle
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Karen Coyle
• Comments on draft #3 Karen Coyle
• Re: documents produced by working group members Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: documents produced by working group members Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Arthur Ryman
• documents produced by working group members Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Human-readable error messages in an R2RML validator Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Richard Cyganiak
• Re: New user story: S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON Richard Cyganiak
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Eric Prud'hommeaux
• UCR FPWD (ready) & regrets for telco today Simon Steyskal
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Arthur Ryman
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Arthur Ryman
• Re: Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Z Errors in Shape Expressions 1.0 Definition Arthur Ryman
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Arthur Ryman
• Anyone in support of SPARQL ASK constraints? Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 18 March 2015

• Re: Comments on Draft #2 Arthur Ryman
• Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: Comments on Draft Arthur Ryman
• Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec Arthur Ryman
• Re: Comments on Draft Arthur Ryman
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 Irene Polikoff
• Re: Comments on Draft Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on Draft Holger Knublauch
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 Arthur Ryman
• Re: Comments on Draft Arthur Ryman
• Re: New user story: S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 March 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

• Re: Proposals around SPARQL Arthur Ryman
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDFS entailment mandatory? (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) Arthur Ryman
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 Holger Knublauch
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) Arthur Ryman
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL - examples) Arthur Ryman
• Re: Eric's description of core SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Arthur Ryman
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on Draft #2 Irene Polikoff
• Comments on Draft #2 Karen Coyle
• Re: Eric's description of core SHACL Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Eric's description of core SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Comments on Draft Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on Draft Holger Knublauch
• Re: Comments on Draft Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on Draft Holger Knublauch
• Re: Comments on Draft Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on Draft Holger Knublauch
• Re: Comments on Draft Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on Draft Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on Draft Holger Knublauch

Monday, 16 March 2015

• Re: Comments on Draft Irene Polikoff
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Holger Knublauch
• Comments on Draft Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: SHACL specification document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• recursive shapes (and negation) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL specification document Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Holger Knublauch
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Holger Knublauch
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Holger Knublauch
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Eric Prud'hommeaux

Sunday, 15 March 2015

• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Holger Knublauch
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL abstract syntax or functional specification Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Arthur Ryman
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL abstract syntax or functional specification Arthur Ryman
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Irene Polikoff
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Eric Prud'hommeaux

Saturday, 14 March 2015

• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL specification document Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• SHACL specification document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Irene Polikoff
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Irene Polikoff
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Irene Polikoff
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Arnaud Le Hors

Friday, 13 March 2015

• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Irene Polikoff
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Karen Coyle
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 March 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Regrets for weekly calls Iovka Boneva
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors

Thursday, 12 March 2015

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 March 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Holger Knublauch
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 March 2015 Richard Cyganiak
• New user story: S42: Constraining RDF graphs for better mapping to JSON Richard Cyganiak
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 March 2015 Karen Coyle
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Anamitra Bhattacharyya
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Anamitra Bhattacharyya
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

• S17: Specify subsets of data Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Fw: Doodle: Link for poll "RDF Data Shapes WG F2F3" Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Fw: Doodle: Link for poll "RDF Data Shapes WG F2F3" Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Proposal to extend weekly call by 30mn: APPROVED Arnaud Le Hors
• Fw: Doodle: Link for poll "RDF Data Shapes WG F2F3" Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Proposal to extend weekly call by 30mn Arnaud Le Hors

Monday, 9 March 2015

• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Karen Coyle
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Richard Cyganiak
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Proposals around SPARQL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 8 March 2015

• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 7 March 2015

• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 6 March 2015

• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Eric Prud'hommeaux
• SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 5 March 2015

• Sections 1 and 2 of SHACL Spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec Holger Knublauch
• Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Question of organization of Requirements wiki page Holger Knublauch
• Proposal to extend weekly call by 30mn Arnaud Le Hors
• differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RDF Data Shapes Minutes for 5 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Question of organization of Requirements wiki page Richard Cyganiak
• Re: New user story: S41 Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel Richard Cyganiak
• shapes-ACTION-16: Set up doodle poll for date/location of next f2f RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: New user story: S41 Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel Karen Coyle
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Karen Coyle
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Richard Cyganiak
• Re: New user story: S41 Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Richard Cyganiak
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Karen Coyle
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Karen Coyle
• Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• New user story: S41 Validating schema.org instances against model and metamodel Richard Cyganiak
• Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints Richard Cyganiak
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Wednesday, 4 March 2015

• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 March 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• (no subject) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: xsd:anyURI syntax Karen Coyle
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Richard Cyganiak
• RDFS entailment mandatory? (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) Holger Knublauch
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Holger Knublauch
• Scoping of constraints (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL) Holger Knublauch
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• xsd:anyURI syntax (was: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL - examples) Holger Knublauch
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL - examples Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• a SHACL specification based on SPARQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Karen Coyle
• Re: [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels Arthur Ryman
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Irene Polikoff
• “SHACL Minus SPARQL” (was: Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Karen Coyle
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Karen Coyle
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Irene Polikoff
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• sh:sparqlFilter (was: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL) Holger Knublauch
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Monday, 2 March 2015

• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Holger Knublauch
• It's SHACL not SHAQL Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Richard Cyganiak
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Iovka Boneva
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Irene Polikoff
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Richard Cyganiak
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Richard Cyganiak
• Re: [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels Dimitris Kontokostas
• SHACL abstract syntax or functional specification Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Karen Coyle
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Dean Allemang
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Irene Polikoff

Sunday, 1 March 2015

• Re: [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels Holger Knublauch
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Holger Knublauch
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Holger Knublauch
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Dean Allemang
• Re: The NoSPARQL use case Karen Coyle
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Karen Coyle
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Irene Polikoff
• [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels Dimitris Kontokostas
• The NoSPARQL use case Richard Cyganiak
• European Data Forum (EDF 2015) - Call for contributions: Deadline 15 May 2015 Axel Polleres
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL Holger Knublauch
• Re: Early feedback on SHACL Spec appreciated Holger Knublauch
• Changed link to SHACL ED Holger Knublauch

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