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

Thursday, 31 March 2016

• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Holger Knublauch
• Re: Issue 93 Jim Amsden
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Karen Coyle
• Re: Issue 93 Karen Coyle
• Re: Issue 93 Jim Amsden
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Dimitris Kontokostas

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Issue 93 Karen Coyle
• shapes-ISSUE-142 (loose terminology): SHACL spec is too loose with its uses of terminology [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 31 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch

Monday, 28 March 2016

• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core Holger Knublauch

Friday, 25 March 2016

• external contributions? Alessandro Bollini
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 24 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• schema.org and SHACL Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 24 March 2016

• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core Holger Knublauch
• disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: implementing paths for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 24 March 2016 Simon Steyskal
• Re: implementing paths for SHACL Simon Steyskal

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 24 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• implementing paths for SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Editorial clean up around constraints Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 22 March 2016

• Re: Editorial clean up around constraints Irene Polikoff
• implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Editorial clean up around constraints Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-68 definition of pre-binding Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-68 definition of pre-binding Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Monday, 21 March 2016

• Re: ISSUE-68 definition of pre-binding Holger Knublauch
• Re: pre-binding vs prebinding Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-140 (Individual validation): SHACL needs to support validation of individual nodes [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE-68 definition of pre-binding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• pre-binding vs prebinding Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Dimitris Kontokostas

Sunday, 20 March 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 19 March 2016

• Face to face meeting? Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints Holger Knublauch

Friday, 18 March 2016

• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 17 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints Miika Alonen
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints Bart van Leeuwen
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• How to make progress on syntax and metamodel? Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-139 (Universal applicability): Can all constraint properties be applied in all scenarios? [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-138 (Property constraints as lists): Should property constraints use rdf:Lists? [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-128 (rdfs:range): sh:defaultValueType is rdfs:range [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 17 March 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Tom Johnson
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Tom Johnson
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Tom Johnson
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 17 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 17 March 2016 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 17 March 2016 Iovka Boneva
• RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 17 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors

Wednesday, 16 March 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-136 (Property pair names): Can we clarify the names of property pair constraint types? [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Simon Steyskal
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Iovka Boneva
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer Iovka Boneva

Monday, 14 March 2016

• Re: rdf language tag contraints Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: rdf language tag contraints Bart van Leeuwen
• Re: rdf language tag contraints Karen Coyle
• shapes-ISSUE-137 (bartvanleeuwen): Missing constraint for language tag [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: rdf language tag contraints Bart van Leeuwen
• Re: rdf language tag contraints Karen Coyle
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Tom Johnson
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 10 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Beware: Daylight saving time in effect in the US Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Tom Johnson
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: rdf language tag contraints Bart van Leeuwen
• Re: rdf language tag contraints Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Tom Johnson
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-136 (Property pair names): Can we clarify the names of property pair constraint types? [SHACL - Core] Karen Coyle

Sunday, 13 March 2016

• Re: ISSUE-133: multi-occurrence use cases Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-136 (Property pair names): Can we clarify the names of property pair constraint types? [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Holger Knublauch
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Holger Knublauch
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• rdf language tag contraints Bart van Leeuwen
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff

Saturday, 12 March 2016

• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Tom Johnson
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Tom Johnson
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: ISSUE-133: multi-occurrence use cases (was: Selected problems with Proposal 4) Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: recursion in SHACL Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: New SHACL co-editor Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE-133: multi-occurrence use cases (was: Selected problems with Proposal 4) Holger Knublauch
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Karen Coyle

Friday, 11 March 2016

• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Karen Coyle
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Karen Coyle
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Karen Coyle
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Irene Polikoff
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-65: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: New SHACL co-editor Karen Coyle
• New SHACL co-editor Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shaky foundations for SHACL [was Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition] Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• Re: shaky foundations for SHACL [was Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• 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] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• 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] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• ISSUE-133: Proposals on multi-occurrence Holger Knublauch
• refactored syntax document available Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• Re: shaky foundations for SHACL [was Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• shaky foundations for SHACL [was Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Irene Polikoff

Thursday, 10 March 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-135 (and/or syntactic sugar): Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Tom Johnson
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Holger Knublauch
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Irene Polikoff
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-65: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Selected problems with Proposal 4 Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-65: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-41: Property paths Simon Steyskal
• ISSUE-65: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 9 March 2016

• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 10 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• ISSUE-41: Property paths (was: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity) Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Simon Steyskal
• ISSUE-68: Updated definition Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 8 March 2016

• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Karen Coyle
• shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Tom Johnson
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch

Monday, 7 March 2016

• shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-131 (sh:hasShape ill defined): The definition of sh:hasShape has errors and holes [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Irene Polikoff
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Karen Coyle
• recursion in SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Dimitris Kontokostas
• shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: [Editorial] Use of MUST etc (was: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft) Richard Cyganiak
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• [Editorial] Use of MUST etc (was: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft) Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 6 March 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-128 (rdfs:range): sh:defaultValueType is rdfs:range [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-127 (sh:TemplateScope undefined): sh:TemplateScope is mentioned but not defined [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-126 (sh:TemplateConstraint undefined): sh:TemplateConstraint is used in examples but not defined [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-125 (sh:NodeConstraint missing): sh:NodeConstraint is mentioned but never defined [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• shapes-ISSUE-128 (rdfs:range): sh:defaultValueType is rdfs:range [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-127 (sh:TemplateScope undefined): sh:TemplateScope is mentioned but not defined [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-126 (sh:TemplateConstraint undefined): sh:TemplateConstraint is used in examples but not defined [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-125 (sh:NodeConstraint missing): sh:NodeConstraint is mentioned but never defined [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Karen Coyle

Saturday, 5 March 2016

• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Friday, 4 March 2016

• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications Jim Amsden
• Re: SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Irene Polikoff
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 3 March 2016

• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Holger Knublauch
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 3 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) Dimitris Kontokostas
• shapes-ACTION-36: Send proposal for sh:stem in response to issue-80 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer Arnaud Le Hors
• bringing ShEx and Shacl closer Iovka Boneva
• SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 3 March 2016 Holger Knublauch
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 3 March 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Wednesday, 2 March 2016

• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications Holger Knublauch
• issue-95 metamodel simplifications Eric Prud'hommeaux
• probable regrets Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Karen Coyle

Tuesday, 1 March 2016

• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Last message date: Thursday, 31 March 2016 23:34:39 UTC