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

Arnaud Le Hors

• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 19 November 2015 (Friday, 20 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 November 2015 (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 12 November 2015 (Thursday, 19 November)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 November 2015 (Wednesday, 18 November)
• Re: Are we running out of time? (Wednesday, 18 November)
• Re: Are we running out of time? (was: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec]) (Saturday, 14 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: UI/UX snippets (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: UI/UX snippets (Friday, 13 November)
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 12 November 2015 (Thursday, 12 November)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 November 2015 (Wednesday, 11 November)
• Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (Monday, 9 November)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 5 November 2015 (Friday, 6 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 November 2015 (Thursday, 5 November)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 November 2015 (Wednesday, 4 November)
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 29 October 2015 (Wednesday, 4 November)

Arthur Ryman

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 19 November 2015 (Tuesday, 24 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: connecting ISSUE-65 (Nomenclature) to other issues (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 November 2015 (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: connecting ISSUE-65 (Nomenclature) to other issues (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 12 November 2015 (Thursday, 19 November)
• ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: Shape Expressions Schemas (was Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft) (Sunday, 15 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 12 November)
• ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Thursday, 12 November)
• ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 5 November 2015 (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: Interaction between minCount and hasValue (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 29 October 2015 (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: Core SHACL Semantics http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: Core SHACL Semantics http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: ACTION-29 Z Specification for the W3C Editor's Draft Core SHACL Semantics (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: ACTION-29 "Recursion in RDF Data Shape Languages" v2 (Wednesday, 4 November)
• ACTION-29 Issues found in your draft of Core SHACL Semantics (Wednesday, 4 November)
• ACTION-29 Z Specification for the W3C Editor's Draft Core SHACL Semantics (Wednesday, 4 November)
• ACTION-29 "Recursion in RDF Data Shape Languages" v2 (Wednesday, 4 November)

Bart van Leeuwen

• Re: UI/UX snippets (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: UI/UX snippets (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: UI/UX snippets (Thursday, 12 November)

Dimitris Kontokostas

• Re: Regrets for next 2 weeks (Friday, 27 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 November 2015 (Thursday, 5 November)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications (Tuesday, 24 November)
• Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft (Tuesday, 17 November)

Holger Knublauch

• Regrets for next 2 weeks (Thursday, 26 November)
• ISSUE-23: Another attempt to compromise (Saturday, 21 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 21 November)
• Constraints metamodel draft (was: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications) (Saturday, 21 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications (Friday, 20 November)
• Re: Are we running out of time? (Tuesday, 17 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: UI/UX snippets (Friday, 13 November)
• ISSUE-112: Proposal using sh:name and sh:description (Friday, 13 November)
• Are we running out of time? (was: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec]) (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: UI/UX snippets (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: UI/UX snippets (Thursday, 12 November)
• ISSUE-92: Possible compromise (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 11 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 10 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 9 November)
• Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (Monday, 9 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 9 November)
• Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (Saturday, 7 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 6 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: Interaction between minCount and hasValue (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-110 (single-property constraints): relationship between sh:constraint and sh:property and sh:inverseProperty (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Tuesday, 3 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Tuesday, 3 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Sunday, 1 November)

Iovka Boneva

• Re: Shape Expressions Schemas (was Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft) (Tuesday, 17 November)
• Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft (Monday, 16 November)

Irene Polikoff

• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 6 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)

Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

• Re: Interaction between minCount and hasValue (Thursday, 5 November)
• Interaction between minCount and hasValue (Thursday, 5 November)

Karen Coyle

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 25 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 25 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 21 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: UI/UX snippets (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Thursday, 12 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 11 November)
• Document: requirements -> SHACL (Wednesday, 11 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 11 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 10 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 10 November)
• Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (Monday, 9 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 9 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 9 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 6 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 6 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 November 2015 (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Tuesday, 3 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Tuesday, 3 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Monday, 2 November)
• Re: shapes-ACTION-30: Send email to group with unclear "satisfied by's" (Monday, 2 November)

Nick Crossley

• Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? (Friday, 13 November)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications (Thursday, 19 November)
• Re: connecting ISSUE-65 (Nomenclature) to other issues (Thursday, 19 November)
• well-formed Shape Expressions Schemas (Tuesday, 17 November)
• Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft (Tuesday, 17 November)
• Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft (Monday, 16 November)
• Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft (Friday, 13 November)
• Shape Expressions Schemas (was Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft) (Friday, 13 November)
• connecting ISSUE-65 (Nomenclature) to other issues (Friday, 13 November)
• Re: Can we freeze the Tracker for while? (Saturday, 7 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Saturday, 7 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 6 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 November 2015 (Thursday, 5 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 November 2015 (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: ACTION-29 Z Specification for the W3C Editor's Draft Core SHACL Semantics (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: ACTION-29 Z Specification for the W3C Editor's Draft Core SHACL Semantics (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Core SHACL Semantics http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: ACTION-29 "Recursion in RDF Data Shape Languages" v2 (Wednesday, 4 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Tuesday, 3 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Tuesday, 3 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Tuesday, 3 November)
• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Tuesday, 3 November)

RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

• shapes-ACTION-31: Create shacl-vocab.ttl and generate HTML as per resolution of ISSUE-87 (Tuesday, 24 November)
• shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 12 November)
• shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 12 November)
• shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 5 November)
• shapes-ISSUE-111 (charter issues): How should the working group address the issues called out in the WG charter? (Thursday, 5 November)
• shapes-ISSUE-110 (single-property constraints): relationship between sh:constraint and sh:property and sh:inverseProperty (Wednesday, 4 November)
• shapes-ISSUE-109 (function calling): SHACL requires that SPARQL implementations be able to call functions defined on the fly [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 4 November)

Simon Steyskal

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 25 November)

Solbrig, Harold R., M.S.

• Re: Regrets for next 2 weeks (Thursday, 26 November)

Ted Thibodeau Jr

• UI/UX snippets (Thursday, 12 November)

Last message date: Friday, 27 November 2015 13:32:14 UTC