public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from April 2016 by date

Friday, 29 April 2016

Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Jim Amsden
Re: Issues Management (was Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined) Arnaud Le Hors
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 28 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
shapes-ISSUE-158 (ill-typed literals and sh:datatype): ill-typed literals do not always trigger a validation result [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined Peter F. Patel-Schneider
ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined Solbrig, Harold R., M.S.
Issues Management (was Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined) Arnaud Le Hors
Re: shapes-ISSUE-156 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined Jim Amsden
shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: shapes-ISSUE-153 (sh:sourceConstraintComponent modality): sh:sourceConstraintComponent is not required but some wording indicates that it is [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-156 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-123 (DirectType syntax): Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
shapes-ISSUE-156 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: shapes-ISSUE-123 (DirectType syntax): Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-153 (sh:sourceConstraintComponent modality): sh:sourceConstraintComponent is not required but some wording indicates that it is [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 28 April 2016 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 28 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Arnaud Le Hors
Re: Some ISSUE proposals for this week Holger Knublauch
Re: Some ISSUE proposals for this week Arnaud Le Hors
Some ISSUE proposals for this week Holger Knublauch

Monday, 25 April 2016

ISSUE-107: Declaring SPARQL variable for sh:Parameters Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 24 April 2016

Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Eric Prud'hommeaux
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 23 April 2016

Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 22 April 2016

ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-105: Proposal based on sh:prefix Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-105: Proposal based on sh:prefix Jim Amsden
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Holger Knublauch
ISSUE-105: Proposal based on sh:prefix Holger Knublauch
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 21 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016 Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
New metamodel/SPARQL sections Holger Knublauch
Re: sh:Shape and rdfs:class Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: sh:Shape and rdfs:class Irene Polikoff
sh:Shape and rdfs:class Karen Coyle

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Re: More wording Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: More wording Irene Polikoff
Re: More wording Arnaud Le Hors
Re: More wording Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Holger Knublauch
Re: More wording Irene Polikoff
Re: shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Monday, 18 April 2016

Re: More wording Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: More wording Irene Polikoff
Re: More wording Irene Polikoff
Re: More wording Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: More wording Karen Coyle
Re: More wording Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
More wording Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-149 (? vs $ in nodeKind): the SPARQL codefor nodeKind uses both ?value and $value [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
shapes-ISSUE-149 (? vs $ in nodeKind): the SPARQL codefor nodeKind uses both ?value and $value [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 17 April 2016

Re: Clarifying word Irene Polikoff
Re: Clarifying word Irene Polikoff
Re: Clarifying word Irene Polikoff
Re: Clarifying word Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Eric Prud'hommeaux
Re: Clarifying word Irene Polikoff

Saturday, 16 April 2016

Re: refactored syntax document available Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Clarifying word Karen Coyle

Friday, 15 April 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-148 (scope syntax): non-uniform syntax in scopes [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
shapes-ISSUE-148 (scope syntax): non-uniform syntax in scopes [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Thursday, 14 April 2016

Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 14 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Holger Knublauch
regrets for April 21 and April 28 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Jim Amsden
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Holger Knublauch
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Holger Knublauch
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Jim Amsden
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Irene Polikoff
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Irene Polikoff
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Jim Amsden
Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Jim Amsden
Re: Shapes and/vs constraints Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-144 (substitution): substition is sometimes used instead of pre-binding [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Shapes and/vs constraints Karen Coyle
ISSUE-22: Suggested revision of wording on recursion Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 13 April 2016

Proposal 4 is immature, untested and unstable (was: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax)) Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Karen Coyle
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 14 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Holger Knublauch
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec Arnaud Le Hors
Re: ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape Arnaud Le Hors
Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] Arnaud Le Hors
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Jim Amsden
Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Jim Amsden
Re: Moving forward with part 2 of the spec Jim Amsden
Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Eric Prud'hommeaux
Moving forward with part 2 of the spec Holger Knublauch
Re: Current ShEx RDF metamodel? Simon Steyskal
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Holger Knublauch
Current ShEx RDF metamodel? Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch

Monday, 11 April 2016

Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Karen Coyle
ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Jim Amsden
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
valid and invalid shapes (ISSUE-134) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: fundamental problems with SHACL Holger Knublauch
ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (was: fundamental problems with SHACL) Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 10 April 2016

Re: ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-147 (vocabulary tyops): misspelled vocabulary in specification document [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
shapes-ISSUE-147 (vocabulary tyops): misspelled vocabulary in specification document [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: shapes-ISSUE-143 (pre-binding in core): more pre-binding is needed in Section 3 [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-144 (substitution): substition is sometimes used instead of pre-binding [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-145 (minExclusive code incorrect): the SPARQL code for sh:minExclusive is incorrect [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 9 April 2016

new version of Validating and Describing Linked Data Portals using Shapes submtited to SWJ Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 8 April 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] Irene Polikoff
Re: ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-145 (minExclusive code incorrect): the SPARQL code for sh:minExclusive is incorrect [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-144 (substitution): substition is sometimes used instead of pre-binding [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-143 (pre-binding in core): more pre-binding is needed in Section 3 [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: fundamental problems with SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense Holger Knublauch
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes 7 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
RE: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL Simon.Cox@csiro.au
Re: fundamental problems with SHACL Irene Polikoff
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Holger Knublauch
Re: fundamental problems with SHACL Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 7 April 2016

ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch
Re: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL Irene Polikoff
Re: proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL Holger Knublauch
fundamental problems with SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 7 April 2016 Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 7 April 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Some issues that may be close to resolution Holger Knublauch
ISSUE-101: Can we close this? Holger Knublauch
ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-125 (sh:NodeConstraint missing): sh:NodeConstraint is mentioned but never defined [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Friday, 1 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 31 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Last message date: Friday, 29 April 2016 18:53:38 UTC