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

Clarifying word

Current ShEx RDF metamodel?

fundamental problems with SHACL

implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax)

ISSUE-101: Can we close this?

ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments

ISSUE-105: Proposal based on sh:prefix

ISSUE-107: Declaring SPARQL variable for sh:Parameters

ISSUE-110: Can we close this?

ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape

ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense

ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type

ISSUE-22: Suggested revision of wording on recursion

ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding

ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (was: fundamental problems with SHACL)

ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint

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)

More wording

Moving forward with part 2 of the spec

New metamodel/SPARQL sections

new version of Validating and Describing Linked Data Portals using Shapes submtited to SWJ

Proposal 4 is immature, untested and unstable (was: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax))

proposed user-friendly syntax for SHACL

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 14 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 28 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 7 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes 7 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 14 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 21 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 28 April 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 31 March 2016

refactored syntax document available

regrets for April 21 and April 28

Selected problems with Proposal 4

sh:Shape and rdfs:class

Shapes and/vs constraints

shapes-ISSUE-123 (DirectType syntax): Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-125 (sh:NodeConstraint missing): sh:NodeConstraint is mentioned but never defined [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-143 (pre-binding in core): more pre-binding is needed in Section 3 [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-144 (substitution): substition is sometimes used instead of pre-binding [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-145 (minExclusive code incorrect): the SPARQL code for sh:minExclusive is incorrect [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-147 (vocabulary tyops): misspelled vocabulary in specification document [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-148 (scope syntax): non-uniform syntax in scopes [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-149 (? vs $ in nodeKind): the SPARQL codefor nodeKind uses both ?value and $value [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-153 (sh:sourceConstraintComponent modality): sh:sourceConstraintComponent is not required but some wording indicates that it is [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-154 (value set not defined): the description of sh:equals and sh:disjoint use the term "value set", which is not defined

shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-156 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-158 (ill-typed literals and sh:datatype): ill-typed literals do not always trigger a validation result [SHACL - Core]

Some ISSUE proposals for this week

Some issues that may be close to resolution

the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134

valid and invalid shapes (ISSUE-134)

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