RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 28 April 2016
shapes-ISSUE-158 (ill-typed literals and sh:datatype): ill-typed literals do not always trigger a validation result [SHACL - Core]
ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type
shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec]
shapes-ISSUE-156 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec]
Re: shapes-ISSUE-123 (DirectType syntax): Shall we unify the syntax of sh:directType and sh:class? [SHACL - Core]
shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
shapes-ISSUE-153 (sh:sourceConstraintComponent modality): sh:sourceConstraintComponent is not required but some wording indicates that it is [SHACL Spec]
shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-152 (sh:labelTemplate not defined): sh:labelTemplate should be defined for all its uses [SHACL Spec]
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 28 April 2016
Some ISSUE proposals for this week
ISSUE-107: Declaring SPARQL variable for sh:Parameters
ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments
ISSUE-105: Proposal based on sh:prefix
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 21 April 2016
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016
New metamodel/SPARQL sections
sh:Shape and rdfs:class
shapes-ISSUE-151 (illegal shapes): shape for sh:and is illegal [SHACL Spec]
More wording
shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-150 (nested severities): Treatment of nested severities [SHACL Spec]
shapes-ISSUE-149 (? vs $ in nodeKind): the SPARQL codefor nodeKind uses both ?value and $value [SHACL - Core]
Re: refactored syntax document available
Clarifying word
shapes-ISSUE-148 (scope syntax): non-uniform syntax in scopes [SHACL - Core]
Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 14 April 2016
regrets for April 21 and April 28
Shapes and/vs constraints
ISSUE-22: Suggested revision of wording on recursion
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 14 April 2016
Moving forward with part 2 of the spec
Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax)
- Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax)
Current ShEx RDF metamodel?
ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint
- Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint
- Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint
- Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint
valid and invalid shapes (ISSUE-134)
Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core]
shapes-ISSUE-147 (vocabulary tyops): misspelled vocabulary in specification document [SHACL Spec]
new version of Validating and Describing Linked Data Portals using Shapes submtited to SWJ
shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-146 (sh:qualifiedMinCount ): treatment of unbound results from sh:hasShape in sh:qualifiedMinCount (and elsewhere) [SHACL - Core]
shapes-ISSUE-145 (minExclusive code incorrect): the SPARQL code for sh:minExclusive is incorrect [SHACL - Core]
shapes-ISSUE-144 (substitution): substition is sometimes used instead of pre-binding [SHACL Spec]
shapes-ISSUE-143 (pre-binding in core): more pre-binding is needed in Section 3 [SHACL - Core]
Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core]
ISSUE-139: Cases where constraint components do not make sense
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes 7 April 2016
ISSUE-131: Cleaned up definition of sh:hasShape
fundamental problems with SHACL
- Re: fundamental problems with SHACL
- Re: fundamental problems with SHACL
- ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (was: fundamental problems with SHACL)
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- Re: ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding
- ISSUE-68: Simpler definition of pre-binding (was: fundamental problems with SHACL)
- Re: fundamental problems with SHACL
the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 7 April 2016
Some issues that may be close to resolution
ISSUE-101: Can we close this?
ISSUE-110: Can we close this?
Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core]
Re: shapes-ISSUE-125 (sh:NodeConstraint missing): sh:NodeConstraint is mentioned but never defined [SHACL Spec]
Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]