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

Saturday, 31 October 2015

Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? Karen Coyle

Friday, 30 October 2015

Re: shapes-ISSUE-107 (annotations v. arguments): annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch
ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch
Re: Functions invocation Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-106 (annotation properties): Annotation properties are not defined well [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-107 (annotations v. arguments): annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
sh:Template needed? (was: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications) Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 29 October 2015

Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Irene Polikoff
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Irene Polikoff
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch
Re: Functions invocation Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch
Functions invocation (was: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications) Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-108 (operations): Should operations be specified? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-107 (annotations v. arguments): annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: DISTINCT in sparql definitions Arthur Ryman
Re: why use rdf:List? Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Arthur Ryman
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ACTION-30: Send email to group with unclear "satisfied by's" RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-61 (was: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0) Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: On using the Proposal page (was Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications) Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Arthur Ryman
ISSUE-95 PROPOSAL: Clarify the spec. Make a distinction between built-ins and extensions. Stop claiming that built-ins are templates. If an implementation wants to use the template mechanism for built-ins, that's ok but that's not part of the spec. Arthur Ryman
ISSUE-95 PROPOSAL: Define the extension mechanism with minimal dependency on an underlying and undocumented class hierarchy. RDFS is not UML. Arthur Ryman
ISSUE-95 PROPOSAL: A SHACL process shall inject a property constraint for all instances of some suitable property template class, e.g. sh:PropertyConstraintTemplate. Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch
On using the Proposal page (was Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications) Arnaud Le Hors
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Irene Polikoff
shapes-ISSUE-108 (operations): Should operations be specified? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-107 (annotations v. arguments): annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-106 (annotation properties): Annotation properties are not defined well [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 28 October 2015

RDF Data Shapes 29 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications Arthur Ryman
Requirements and SHACL Karen Coyle

Monday, 26 October 2015

RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 22 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: Arguments are ordered? Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 24 October 2015

Arguments are ordered? Vladimir Alexiev
Re: DISTINCT in sparql definitions Holger Knublauch
Re: why use rdf:List? Holger Knublauch
DISTINCT in sparql definitions Vladimir Alexiev
why use rdf:List? Vladimir Alexiev

Friday, 23 October 2015

Re: Proposals page Arnaud Le Hors
shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Thursday, 22 October 2015

Re: Proposals page Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Proposals page Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? Arthur Ryman
Connecting SHACL to Requirements Karen Coyle
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 22 October 2015 Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

Wednesday, 21 October 2015

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 22 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors

Tuesday, 20 October 2015

Re: speeding up the working group Karen Coyle

Monday, 19 October 2015

Re: On how to deal with issues (was ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements) Arnaud Le Hors
Re: On how to deal with issues (was ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements) Arnaud Le Hors
Re: A Modest Proposal Holger Knublauch
shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 18 October 2015

Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-102 leaving this to other syntaxes Holger Knublauch
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Karen Coyle
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Karen Coyle
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 17 October 2015

Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-102 leaving this to other syntaxes Karen Coyle
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Karen Coyle
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Holger Knublauch
Re: A Modest Proposal Irene Polikoff
Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Karen Coyle

Friday, 16 October 2015

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Irene Polikoff
Re: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements Holger Knublauch
Re: A Modest Proposal Holger Knublauch
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Karen Coyle
Re: A Modest Proposal Karen Coyle
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Irene Polikoff
Re: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements Arnaud Le Hors
A Modest Proposal Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Karen Coyle
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Dimitris Kontokostas
AW: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements Simon Steyskal
ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 15 October 2015

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Holger Knublauch
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 15 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
Proposal to close ISSUE-102 leaving this to other syntaxes Holger Knublauch
Proposal to close ISSUE-84 Holger Knublauch
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Editing examples Arthur Ryman
Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-57 (labra): Grouping of Shapes [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: paper on recursive SPARQL at ISWC Ralph TQ [Gmail]
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution Peter F. Patel-Schneider
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
paper on recursive SPARQL at ISWC Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-102 (Specifying defaults): Some defaults cannot be explicitly coded [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
ISSUE-61 proposed resolution Dimitris Kontokostas

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

Re: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0 Karen Coyle

Monday, 12 October 2015

Re: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0 Holger Knublauch
ISSUE-61 (was: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0) Holger Knublauch
Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0 Jim Amsden
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Karen Coyle
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Holger Knublauch
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Dimitris Kontokostas

Sunday, 11 October 2015

Re: Suggested redesign of Operations section Arthur Ryman
Re: shapes-ISSUE-94 (hsolbrig): Should RDF syntax requirements be separated from SHACL semantics [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Holger Knublauch
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Karen Coyle

Saturday, 10 October 2015

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Dimitris Kontokostas

Friday, 9 October 2015

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Holger Knublauch
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Arnaud Le Hors
Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 Dimitris Kontokostas
Call for Exclusions: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Xueyuan Jia
Re: speeding up the working group Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 8 October 2015

Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 8 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: SHACL First Public Working Draft published! Arnaud Le Hors
Re: SHACL First Public Working Draft published! Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-57 (labra): Grouping of Shapes [SHACL Spec] Simon Steyskal
Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 Karen Coyle
SHACL First Public Working Draft published! Arnaud Le Hors
ISSUE-92 [Was: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015] Eric Prud'hommeaux
shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
shapes-ISSUE-100 (sh:index): Proposal to allow (optional) sh:index for property constraints [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

Monday, 5 October 2015

Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Friday, 2 October 2015

Re: sh:maxCount 0 Karen Coyle
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 1 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-97 (sh:derivedValues): Proposal to define constraints using derived values [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: sh:maxCount 0 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: sh:maxCount 0 Karen Coyle
speeding up the working group Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: sh:maxCount 0 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
sh:maxCount 0 Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
shapes-ISSUE-98 (Node constraints): Proposal to generalize property constraints into node constraints [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Thursday, 1 October 2015

regrets Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Iovka Boneva
Re: DCMI tests - help needed Simon Steyskal
Re: DCMI tests - help needed Karen Coyle
Re: DCMI tests - help needed Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (ISSUE-91) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: DCMI tests - help needed Simon Steyskal
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (ISSUE-91) Karen Coyle
Re: DCMI tests - help needed Simon Steyskal
DCMI tests - help needed Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Eric Prud'hommeaux
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: UCR WD published! Simon Steyskal
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 Holger Knublauch
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (ISSUE-91) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-90 (Literal focus nodes): Can the focus node be a literal? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-89 (recursion without properties): How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: UCR WD published! Arthur Ryman
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 Holger Knublauch

Last message date: Saturday, 31 October 2015 14:47:09 UTC