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

Wednesday, 30 September 2015

• RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• UCR WD published! Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Probably Regrets for 2015-10-01 WG Telecon Solbrig, Harold R., M.S.
• Probably Regrets for 2015-10-01 WG Telecon Arthur Ryman
• Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Arthur Ryman

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Iovka Boneva
• shapes-ISSUE-97 (sh:derivedValues): Proposal to define constraints using derived values [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Turtle file Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-95 (Template Simplifications): Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Monday, 28 September 2015

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Re: Reference to ReSpec without "http:" Simon Steyskal

Sunday, 27 September 2015

• Re: Suggested redesign of Operations section Holger Knublauch
• Re: Suggested redesign of Operations section Arthur Ryman
• Re: Re: Reference to ReSpec without "http:" Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 26 September 2015

• Re: Editing examples Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: Editing examples Karen Coyle
• Re: Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Holger Knublauch

Friday, 25 September 2015

• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Holger Knublauch
• Proposal for "Repeated Property" Requirement - sh:partition Arthur Ryman
• Re: Suggested redesign of Operations section Holger Knublauch
• AW: Re: Reference to ReSpec without "http:" Simon Steyskal
• Re: Reference to ReSpec without "http:" Holger Knublauch
• Changes to sh:ClosedShapeConstraint? (was: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec]) Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-88 (labra): qualified values [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for F2F 8-10 September 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Editing examples Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-89 (recursion without properties): How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? [SHACL Spec] Arthur Ryman
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for F2F 8-10 September 2015 Arthur Ryman
• Re: How to do repetition in SHACL (revised) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How to do repetition in SHACL (revised) Arthur Ryman
• Re: Suggested redesign of Operations section Arthur Ryman
• Re: Reference to ReSpec without "http:" Arthur Ryman
• Re: issue nicknames Solbrig, Harold R.
• issue nicknames Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Reference to ReSpec without "http:" Simon Steyskal
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-90 (Literal focus nodes): Can the focus node be a literal? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-90 (Literal focus nodes): Can the focus node be a literal? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors

Thursday, 24 September 2015

• Re: Question about directValueType Holger Knublauch
• Re: Question about the behavior of property shapes Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: Suggested redesign of Operations section Holger Knublauch
• Re: Turtle file Holger Knublauch
• Re: Suggested redesign of Operations section Arthur Ryman
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 24 September 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Turtle file Arthur Ryman
• Re: Turtle file Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Turtle file Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Question about directValueType Solbrig, Harold R.
• shapes-ISSUE-94 (hsolbrig): Should RDF syntax requirements be separated from SHACL semantics [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Question about datatype property constraint. Solbrig, Harold R.
• Re: Turtle file Arthur Ryman
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Turtle file Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Proposed enhancement to the SHACL spec Arthur Ryman
• Question about the behavior of property shapes Solbrig, Harold R.
• Re: Proposed enhancement to the SHACL spec Solbrig, Harold R.
• Re: Proposed enhancement to the SHACL spec Arthur Ryman
• Another formatting proposal. Solbrig, Harold R.
• Proposed enhancement to the SHACL spec Solbrig, Harold R.
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] Irene Polikoff
• shapes-ISSUE-92 (additive repeated properties): Should repeated properties be interpreted as additive or conjunctive? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Solbrig, Harold R.
• shapes-ISSUE-91 (hsolbrig): Default Cardinality [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Editing the SHACL Spec Arthur Ryman

Wednesday, 23 September 2015

• Re: Editing the SHACL Spec Solbrig, Harold R.
• Editing the SHACL Spec Arthur Ryman
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 24 September 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Editorial work question Arnaud Le Hors

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Holger Knublauch
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Karen Coyle

Monday, 21 September 2015

• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Holger Knublauch
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Karen Coyle
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Irene Polikoff
• Editorial work question Karen Coyle
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Karen Coyle
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-90 (Literal focus nodes): Can the focus node be a literal? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• (Editorial): SPARQL definitions can now be hidden Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 20 September 2015

• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Holger Knublauch
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Irene Polikoff
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-88 (labra): qualified values [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Karen Coyle

Saturday, 19 September 2015

• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-88 (labra): qualified values [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Karen Coyle
• shacl document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 18 September 2015

• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Holger Knublauch
• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Holger Knublauch
• Re: propose to make repeated-properties additive Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• propose to make repeated-properties additive Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Dimitris Kontokostas

Thursday, 17 September 2015

• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 17 September 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Spec has been updated Holger Knublauch
• Re: Spec has been updated Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Holger Knublauch
• Spec has been updated Holger Knublauch
• Re: my vote on ISSUE-70 Arthur Ryman
• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Arnaud Le Hors
• Editing examples Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 17 September 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: comments on current version of SHACL document Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 16 September 2015

• comments on current version of SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 15 September 2015

• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-89 (recursion without properties): How should recursion that does not involve a property be handled? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Karen Coyle
• SHACL spec advanced part revisited Holger Knublauch

Monday, 14 September 2015

• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for F2F 8-10 September 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: question on on shacl semantics Holger Knublauch
• Re: question on on shacl semantics Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: question on on shacl semantics Iovka Boneva
• SHACL core spec revisited Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Holger Knublauch
• ISSUE-85: spec updated Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 13 September 2015

• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Irene Polikoff
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-87 (Turtle file): Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Irene Polikoff
• Re: ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Karen Coyle

Friday, 11 September 2015

• shapes-ISSUE-88 (labra): qualified values [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• 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] Dimitris Kontokostas
• shapes-ISSUE-87 (Turtle file): Shall we publish RDF files for the SHACL namespace? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 10 September 2015

• shapes-ISSUE-86 (dimitris): Associating shapes with ontologies or vocabularies [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-81: Final names of property pair constraints? Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 9 September 2015

• shapes-ISSUE-85 (only one xor): what is the definition of XOR? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: question on on shacl semantics Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: question on on shacl semantics Simon Steyskal
• Re: question on on shacl semantics Simon Steyskal
• question on on shacl semantics Iovka Boneva
• Re: logic as the compact syntax for SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: How to do repetition in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How to do repetition in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• How to do repetition in SHACL (revised) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Proposal for Official WG Food Arthur Ryman
• logic as the compact syntax for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: How to do repetition in SHACL Holger Knublauch
• How to do repetition in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 8 September 2015

• Re: Proposal for Official WG Food Solbrig, Harold R.
• Re: Proposal for Official WG Food Karen Coyle
• shapes-ACTION-29: Provide a proposal for recursion (from oscl + shex static analysis) RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Proposal for Official WG Food Arthur Ryman
• Re: fixing http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• section on the relationship between SHACL and RDFS Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Suggested redesign of Operations section Holger Knublauch
• Re: fixing http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ Karen Coyle

Monday, 7 September 2015

• fixing http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: my proposed introduction to the SHACL document Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 6 September 2015

• Re: Shall we add sh:InversePropertyScope and sh:AllObjectsScope? Holger Knublauch
• Re: Shall we add sh:InversePropertyScope and sh:AllObjectsScope? Karen Coyle

Saturday, 5 September 2015

• Re: Shall we add sh:InversePropertyScope and sh:AllObjectsScope? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Shall we add sh:InversePropertyScope and sh:AllObjectsScope? Karen Coyle
• Re: my proposed introduction to the SHACL document Irene Polikoff

Friday, 4 September 2015

• Spec editing and Github Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: my proposed introduction to the SHACL document Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shape WG Minutes for 3 September Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: my proposal for ISSUE-51 Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: my proposal for ISSUE-51 Karen Coyle
• Re: my proposed introduction to the SHACL document Irene Polikoff
• Re: my proposal for ISSUE-51 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: my proposed introduction to the SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: my proposed introduction to the SHACL document Holger Knublauch
• Re: my proposal for ISSUE-51 Holger Knublauch
• my proposed introduction to the SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• my proposal for ISSUE-51 Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 3 September 2015

• Re: Properties v classes in validation Holger Knublauch
• Draft status Holger Knublauch
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Karen Coyle
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Holger Knublauch
• Re: review of SHACL document (Second pass of responses) Holger Knublauch
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Karen Coyle
• Re: Comments on FPWD Holger Knublauch
• Re: Feedback on SHACL Editor's draft Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 2 September 2015

• Feedback on SHACL Editor's draft Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 3 September 2015 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Primer? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: review of SHACL document (First pass of responses) Holger Knublauch
• Primer? Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-84 (Allowed IRIs): Constraint to limit IRIs of focus nodes to a given enumeration (similar to owl:oneOf) [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Comments on FPWD Arthur Ryman
• review of SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 1 September 2015

• Re: Properties v classes in validation Simon Steyskal
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Holger Knublauch
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Simon Steyskal
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Holger Knublauch
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Holger Knublauch
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Karen Coyle
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Holger Knublauch
• Re: Properties v classes in validation Arnaud Le Hors

Last message date: Wednesday, 30 September 2015 23:37:33 UTC