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

Arnaud Le Hors

• On using the Proposal page (was Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications) (Thursday, 29 October)
• RDF Data Shapes 29 October 2015 (Wednesday, 28 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 22 October 2015 (Monday, 26 October)
• Re: Proposals page (Friday, 23 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 22 October 2015 (Wednesday, 21 October)
• Re: On how to deal with issues (was ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements) (Monday, 19 October)
• Re: On how to deal with issues (was ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements) (Monday, 19 October)
• Re: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements (Friday, 16 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 15 October 2015 (Thursday, 15 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 (Wednesday, 14 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 9 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 8 October 2015 (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: SHACL First Public Working Draft published! (Thursday, 8 October)
• SHACL First Public Working Draft published! (Thursday, 8 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (Wednesday, 7 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 1 October 2015 (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 2 October)

Arthur Ryman

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-108 (operations): Should operations be specified? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-107 (annotations v. arguments): annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: DISTINCT in sparql definitions (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: why use rdf:List? (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-61 (was: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0) (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: On using the Proposal page (was Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications) (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• 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. (Thursday, 29 October)
• ISSUE-95 PROPOSAL: Define the extension mechanism with minimal dependency on an underlying and undocumented class hierarchy. RDFS is not UML. (Thursday, 29 October)
• ISSUE-95 PROPOSAL: A SHACL process shall inject a property constraint for all instances of some suitable property template class, e.g. sh:PropertyConstraintTemplate. (Thursday, 29 October)
• ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Wednesday, 28 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? (Thursday, 22 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 22 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? (Thursday, 22 October)
• ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: Editing examples (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: Suggested redesign of Operations section (Sunday, 11 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-94 (hsolbrig): Should RDF syntax requirements be separated from SHACL semantics [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 11 October)
• Re: UCR WD published! (Thursday, 1 October)

Dimitris Kontokostas

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-107 (annotations v. arguments): annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 30 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 (Thursday, 15 October)
• ISSUE-61 proposed resolution (Wednesday, 14 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Monday, 12 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Saturday, 10 October)
• Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 9 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 7 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 1 October)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• ISSUE-92 [Was: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015] (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 1 October)

Holger Knublauch

• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Friday, 30 October)
• ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Friday, 30 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Friday, 30 October)
• Re: Functions invocation (Friday, 30 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-106 (annotation properties): Annotation properties are not defined well [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 30 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-107 (annotations v. arguments): annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 30 October)
• sh:Template needed? (was: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications) (Friday, 30 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Friday, 30 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Functions invocation (was: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications) (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: Arguments are ordered? (Monday, 26 October)
• Re: DISTINCT in sparql definitions (Saturday, 24 October)
• Re: why use rdf:List? (Saturday, 24 October)
• Proposals page (Thursday, 22 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 22 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? (Thursday, 22 October)
• Re: A Modest Proposal (Monday, 19 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Monday, 19 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-102 leaving this to other syntaxes (Sunday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Sunday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Saturday, 17 October)
• Re: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: A Modest Proposal (Friday, 16 October)
• ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Is sh:scopeClass overloaded? (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Thursday, 15 October)
• Proposal to close ISSUE-102 leaving this to other syntaxes (Thursday, 15 October)
• Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution (Wednesday, 14 October)
• Re: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0 (Monday, 12 October)
• ISSUE-61 (was: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0) (Monday, 12 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Monday, 12 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Sunday, 11 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 9 October)
• Re: speeding up the working group (Friday, 9 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: SHACL First Public Working Draft published! (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 7 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 7 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-97 (sh:derivedValues): Proposal to define constraints using derived values [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 5 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (Thursday, 1 October)

Iovka Boneva

• Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition (Thursday, 1 October)

Irene Polikoff

• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: A Modest Proposal (Saturday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 16 October)

Jim Amsden

• Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0 (Monday, 12 October)

Jose Emilio Labra Gayo

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 22 October 2015 (Thursday, 22 October)

Karen Coyle

• Re: ISSUE-87: Turtle file - SHACL vs RDFS vs OWL, or all? (Saturday, 31 October)
• Requirements and SHACL (Wednesday, 28 October)
• Connecting SHACL to Requirements (Thursday, 22 October)
• Re: speeding up the working group (Tuesday, 20 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Sunday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Sunday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-102 leaving this to other syntaxes (Saturday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Saturday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Saturday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: A Modest Proposal (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-57 (labra): Grouping of Shapes [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 14 October)
• Re: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0 (Tuesday, 13 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Monday, 12 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Sunday, 11 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: sh:maxCount 0 (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: sh:maxCount 0 (Friday, 2 October)
• sh:maxCount 0 (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: DCMI tests - help needed (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (ISSUE-91) (Thursday, 1 October)
• DCMI tests - help needed (Thursday, 1 October)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: Functions invocation (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: ISSUE-95: Template Simplifications (Thursday, 29 October)
• Re: Proposals page (Thursday, 22 October)
• Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-84 (Sunday, 18 October)
• A Modest Proposal (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance (Thursday, 15 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 (Wednesday, 14 October)
• Re: ISSUE-61 proposed resolution (Wednesday, 14 October)
• paper on recursive SPARQL at ISWC (Wednesday, 14 October)
• Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-86 (Friday, 9 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 7 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 6 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-97 (sh:derivedValues): Proposal to define constraints using derived values [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: sh:maxCount 0 (Friday, 2 October)
• speeding up the working group (Friday, 2 October)
• Re: sh:maxCount 0 (Friday, 2 October)
• regrets (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: DCMI tests - help needed (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (ISSUE-91) (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 (ISSUE-91) (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-90 (Literal focus nodes): Can the focus node be a literal? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-89 (recursion without properties): How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 1 October)

Ralph TQ [Gmail]

• Re: paper on recursive SPARQL at ISWC (Wednesday, 14 October)

RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

• shapes-ACTION-30: Send email to group with unclear "satisfied by's" (Thursday, 29 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-108 (operations): Should operations be specified? [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-107 (annotations v. arguments): annotations and arguments use different mechanisms for specifying the SPARQL variable name [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-106 (annotation properties): Annotation properties are not defined well [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-105 (defined prefixes): SHACL SPARQL constraints depend on namespaces in a graph, which is not defined [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 29 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-104 (Union ranges): Should sh:datatype and sh:class have better support for OR? [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 23 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 19 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-102 (Specifying defaults): Some defaults cannot be explicitly coded [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 14 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-101 (templates as classes): use of rdfs:subClassOf for template inheritance (Thursday, 8 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-100 (sh:index): Proposal to allow (optional) sh:index for property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 7 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 2 October)
• shapes-ISSUE-98 (Node constraints): Proposal to generalize property constraints into node constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 2 October)

Simon Steyskal

• AW: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements (Friday, 16 October)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-57 (labra): Grouping of Shapes [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 8 October)
• Re: DCMI tests - help needed (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: DCMI tests - help needed (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: DCMI tests - help needed (Thursday, 1 October)
• Re: UCR WD published! (Thursday, 1 October)

Vladimir Alexiev

• Arguments are ordered? (Saturday, 24 October)
• DISTINCT in sparql definitions (Saturday, 24 October)
• why use rdf:List? (Saturday, 24 October)

Xueyuan Jia

• Call for Exclusions: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) (Friday, 9 October)

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