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

Alessandro Bollini

• external contributions? (Friday, 25 March)

Arnaud Le Hors

• RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 31 March 2016 (Wednesday, 30 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 24 March 2016 (Friday, 25 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 24 March 2016 (Wednesday, 23 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 17 March 2016 (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 17 March 2016 (Thursday, 17 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 17 March 2016 (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: rdf language tag contraints (Monday, 14 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 10 March 2016 (Monday, 14 March)
• Beware: Daylight saving time in effect in the US (Monday, 14 March)
• New SHACL co-editor (Friday, 11 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 10 March 2016 (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Friday, 4 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 3 March 2016 (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer (Thursday, 3 March)
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 3 March 2016 (Thursday, 3 March)

Bart van Leeuwen

• Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: rdf language tag contraints (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: rdf language tag contraints (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: rdf language tag contraints (Monday, 14 March)
• rdf language tag contraints (Sunday, 13 March)

Dimitris Kontokostas

• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: recursion in SHACL (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: New SHACL co-editor (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: ISSUE-65: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) (Friday, 4 March)
• Re: SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) (Thursday, 3 March)
• SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) (Thursday, 3 March)

Eric Prud'hommeaux

• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Thursday, 10 March)
• ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Wednesday, 9 March)
• issue-95 metamodel simplifications (Wednesday, 2 March)

Holger Knublauch

• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core (Monday, 28 March)
• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core (Monday, 28 March)
• schema.org and SHACL (Friday, 25 March)
• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Re: Editorial clean up around constraints (Wednesday, 23 March)
• Editorial clean up around constraints (Tuesday, 22 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68 definition of pre-binding (Tuesday, 22 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68 definition of pre-binding (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: pre-binding vs prebinding (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 20 March)
• Face to face meeting? (Saturday, 19 March)
• Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints (Saturday, 19 March)
• How to make progress on syntax and metamodel? (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-128 (rdfs:range): sh:defaultValueType is rdfs:range [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 18 March)
• ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-136 (Property pair names): Can we clarify the names of property pair constraint types? [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: ISSUE-133: multi-occurrence use cases (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Sunday, 13 March)
• ISSUE-133: multi-occurrence use cases (was: Selected problems with Proposal 4) (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shaky foundations for SHACL [was Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• ISSUE-133: Proposals on multi-occurrence (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shaky foundations for SHACL [was Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 10 March)
• Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Thursday, 10 March)
• ISSUE-65: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 9 March)
• ISSUE-41: Property paths (was: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Monday, 7 March)
• [Editorial] Use of MUST etc (was: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft) (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-128 (rdfs:range): sh:defaultValueType is rdfs:range [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-127 (sh:TemplateScope undefined): sh:TemplateScope is mentioned but not defined [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-126 (sh:TemplateConstraint undefined): sh:TemplateConstraint is used in examples but not defined [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-125 (sh:NodeConstraint missing): sh:NodeConstraint is mentioned but never defined [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications (Saturday, 5 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Saturday, 5 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Saturday, 5 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Friday, 4 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Friday, 4 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 3 March 2016 (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications (Wednesday, 2 March)

Iovka Boneva

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 17 March 2016 (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer (Tuesday, 15 March)
• bringing ShEx and Shacl closer (Thursday, 3 March)

Irene Polikoff

• Re: Editorial clean up around constraints (Tuesday, 22 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: ISSUE-133: multi-occurrence use cases (was: Selected problems with Proposal 4) (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: ISSUE-65: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Friday, 4 March)

Jim Amsden

• Re: Issue 93 (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: Issue 93 (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications (Friday, 4 March)

Karen Coyle

• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: Issue 93 (Thursday, 31 March)
• Issue 93 (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: rdf language tag contraints (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: rdf language tag contraints (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: rdf language tag contraints (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-136 (Property pair names): Can we clarify the names of property pair constraint types? [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: New SHACL co-editor (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Wednesday, 2 March)

Miika Alonen

• Re: ISSUE-137: Re: rdf language tag contraints (Friday, 18 March)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 28 March)
• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core (Monday, 28 March)
• Re: disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core (Thursday, 24 March)
• disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: implementing paths for SHACL (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 23 March)
• implementing paths for SHACL (Wednesday, 23 March)
• implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax) (Tuesday, 22 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68 definition of pre-binding (Tuesday, 22 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 21 March)
• ISSUE-68 definition of pre-binding (Monday, 21 March)
• pre-binding vs prebinding (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: bringing ShEx and Shacl closer (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 17 March 2016 (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Sunday, 13 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-65: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shaky foundations for SHACL [was Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• refactored syntax document available (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• shaky foundations for SHACL [was Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: ACTION: ericP to send proposal for sh:Stem in response to ISSUE-80 (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Tuesday, 8 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 7 March)
• recursion in SHACL (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Monday, 7 March)
• type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Monday, 7 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 6 March)
• comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Sunday, 6 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Saturday, 5 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Saturday, 5 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Friday, 4 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Friday, 4 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: SHACL recursion based on SPARQL (idea) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications (Wednesday, 2 March)
• probable regrets (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Tuesday, 1 March)

RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

• shapes-ISSUE-142 (loose terminology): SHACL spec is too loose with its uses of terminology [SHACL Spec] (Wednesday, 30 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-141 (Mixed ranges): How to represent mixed datatype-or-class ranges [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 22 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-140 (Individual validation): SHACL needs to support validation of individual nodes [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 21 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-139 (Universal applicability): Can all constraint properties be applied in all scenarios? [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 18 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-138 (Property constraints as lists): Should property constraints use rdf:Lists? [SHACL - Core] (Friday, 18 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-137 (bartvanleeuwen): Missing constraint for language tag [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 14 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-136 (Property pair names): Can we clarify the names of property pair constraint types? [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 13 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-135 (and/or syntactic sugar): Should sh:and/sh:or/sh:not/sh:valueShape support constraints too? [SHACL - Core] (Thursday, 10 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 10 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-133 (syntax): syntax simplification and regularization [SHACL - Core] (Tuesday, 8 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-132 (sh:predicate in constraints): sh:predicate is used in many constraints but not always available [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 7 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-131 (sh:hasShape ill defined): The definition of sh:hasShape has errors and holes [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 7 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Monday, 7 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Monday, 7 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-128 (rdfs:range): sh:defaultValueType is rdfs:range [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 6 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-127 (sh:TemplateScope undefined): sh:TemplateScope is mentioned but not defined [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 6 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-126 (sh:TemplateConstraint undefined): sh:TemplateConstraint is used in examples but not defined [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 6 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-125 (sh:NodeConstraint missing): sh:NodeConstraint is mentioned but never defined [SHACL Spec] (Sunday, 6 March)
• shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - Core] (Sunday, 6 March)
• shapes-ACTION-36: Send proposal for sh:stem in response to issue-80 (Thursday, 3 March)

Richard Cyganiak

• Re: [Editorial] Use of MUST etc (was: comments on SHACL 3 March editors draft) (Monday, 7 March)

Simon Steyskal

• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 24 March 2016 (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: implementing paths for SHACL (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-129 (existential constraints): Existential constraints should be consistent [SHACL - Core] (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: ISSUE-41: Property paths (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity (Wednesday, 9 March)

Tom Johnson

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4 (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec] (Tuesday, 8 March)

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