Regrets for next 2 weeks
shapes-ACTION-31: Create shacl-vocab.ttl and generate HTML as per resolution of ISSUE-87
ISSUE-23: Another attempt to compromise
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 19 November 2015
ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications
- Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications
- Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications
- Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications
- Re: ISSUE-95: Proposal for model simplifications
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 November 2015
Re: Are we running out of time?
ISSUE-112: Proposal using sh:name and sh:description
Are we running out of time? (was: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec])
connecting ISSUE-65 (Nomenclature) to other issues
shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-114 (Property Groups): Should SHACL include a grouping mechanism of properties (for UI purposes) [SHACL Spec]
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 12 November 2015
shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec]
ISSUE-92: Possible compromise
UI/UX snippets
ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism
- Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism
- Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism
ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace?
ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft
- Shape Expressions Schemas (was Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft)
- Re: ISSUE-22 Recursion - Status of Core SHACL Semantics draft
Document: requirements -> SHACL
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 November 2015
Can we freeze the Tracker for while?
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 5 November 2015
shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
shapes-ISSUE-111 (charter issues): How should the working group address the issues called out in the WG charter?
Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec]
Interaction between minCount and hasValue
shapes-ISSUE-110 (single-property constraints): relationship between sh:constraint and sh:property and sh:inverseProperty
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 November 2015
shapes-ISSUE-109 (function calling): SHACL requires that SPARQL implementations be able to call functions defined on the fly [SHACL Spec]
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 29 October 2015
Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec]
Core SHACL Semantics http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/
ACTION-29 Issues found in your draft of Core SHACL Semantics
ACTION-29 Z Specification for the W3C Editor's Draft Core SHACL Semantics
ACTION-29 "Recursion in RDF Data Shape Languages" v2
Re: shapes-ACTION-30: Send email to group with unclear "satisfied by's"
Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?
- Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all?