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

Friday, 27 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 26 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors

Thursday, 26 May 2016

Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 May 2016 Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-164 (mutable graphs): [EDITORIAL] Section 1.4 (and maybe other places) looks as if graphs are mutable [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 19 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: shapes-ISSUE-164 (mutable graphs): [EDITORIAL] Section 1.4 (and maybe other places) looks as if graphs are mutable [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-164 (mutable graphs): [EDITORIAL] Section 1.4 (and maybe other places) looks as if graphs are mutable [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas

Sunday, 22 May 2016

Friday, 20 May 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-160 (Generalize sh:valueShape): Shall we generalize sh:valueShape to sh:shape [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-160 (Generalize sh:valueShape): Shall we generalize sh:valueShape to sh:shape [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: On various syntax issues Holger Knublauch
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-165 (shapes and scopes introduction): [EDITORIAL] The introduction of shapes and scopes has confused a reader [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: On various syntax issues Holger Knublauch
Re: On various syntax issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 19 May 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-167 (implicit class scope): [EDITORIAL] implicit class scope gives impression of inferencing Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-163 ("constraining"): should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-160 (Generalize sh:valueShape): Shall we generalize sh:valueShape to sh:shape [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
primer.md Karen Coyle
Re: On various syntax issues Holger Knublauch
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch
proposed reply to Tom Baker [was Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-167 (implicit class scope): [EDITORIAL] implicit class scope gives impression of inferencing RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-166 (two documents): separate out advanced part of specification [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-165 (shapes and scopes introduction): [EDITORIAL] The introduction of shapes and scopes has confused a reader [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ISSUE-164 (mutable graphs): [EDITORIAL] Section 1.4 (and maybe other places) looks as if graphs are mutable [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: shapes-ISSUE-160 (Generalize sh:valueShape): Shall we generalize sh:valueShape to sh:shape [SHACL - Core] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
shapes-ISSUE-163 ("constraining"): should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
shapes-ACTION-37: Check what happens in the shex extension that has severities RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
AW: Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016 simon.steyskal
Re: constraints vs constraining + validating (was Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016) Arnaud Le Hors
Re: On various syntax issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016 Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016 Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016 Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch
Re: On various syntax issues Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Re: On various syntax issues Holger Knublauch
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: On various syntax issues Karen Coyle
Re: On various syntax issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: On various syntax issues Peter F. Patel-Schneider
On various syntax issues Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

Re: Transitive? Jim Amsden
Re: Shall we redo the 1.3 example Holger Knublauch

Monday, 16 May 2016

Re: agenda suggestion for this week Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: agenda suggestion for this week Holger Knublauch
Re: Transitive? Holger Knublauch
Re: Transitive? Karen Coyle
agenda suggestion for this week Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Shall we redo the 1.3 example (was: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)) Irene Polikoff
Re: Transitive? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Transitive? Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Transitive? Jim Amsden
Transitive? Holger Knublauch
Shall we redo the 1.3 example (was: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)) Holger Knublauch
Re: [Editorial] Moving section 5 into section 3.3? Dimitris Kontokostas
[Editorial] Moving section 5 into section 3.3? Holger Knublauch
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch
Re: [EDITORIAL] Scope examples Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-161 (terminology): [EDITORIAL] terminology fixups [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 15 May 2016

[EDITORIAL] Scope examples Irene Polikoff
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Irene Polikoff
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Irene Polikoff
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Irene Polikoff
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-161 (terminology): [EDITORIAL] terminology fixups [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 14 May 2016

Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Irene Polikoff
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Irene Polikoff
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-162 (section 1.2 editorial): [EDITORIAL] Section 1.2 [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
shapes-ISSUE-162 (section 1.2 editorial): [EDITORIAL] Section 1.2 [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-161 (terminology): [EDITORIAL] terminology fixups [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
shapes-ISSUE-161 (terminology): [EDITORIAL] terminology fixups [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch

Friday, 13 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Karen Coyle
Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148) Holger Knublauch
Simplification of scopes section Karen Coyle

Thursday, 12 May 2016

Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 12 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Karen Coyle
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 Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 12 May 2016 Holger Knublauch
Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Holger Knublauch
Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Karen Coyle

Wednesday, 11 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 12 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
shapes-ISSUE-160 (Generalize sh:valueShape): Shall we generalize sh:valueShape to sh:shape [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 Martynas Jusevičius
Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Holger Knublauch
Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Dimitris Kontokostas
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 Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: New Terminology Section Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: regrets Solbrig, Harold R., M.S.
regrets Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Karen Coyle
Re: regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting Eric Prud'hommeaux

Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Martynas Jusevičius
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Irene Polikoff
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: New Terminology Section Martynas Jusevičius
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: what is inferencing? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: New Terminology Section Tom Johnson
Re: New Terminology Section Karen Coyle
ISSUE-133 several options for syntax simplification and regularization Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: New Terminology Section Martynas Jusevičius
Re: New Terminology Section Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: what is inferencing? Karen Coyle
ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: what is inferencing? Jim Amsden
Re: New Terminology Section Martynas Jusevičius
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Tom Johnson
Re: New Terminology Section Tom Johnson
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Tom Johnson
Re: New Terminology Section Peter F. Patel-Schneider
what is inferencing? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: New Terminology Section Karen Coyle
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Tom Johnson

Monday, 9 May 2016

Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Irene Polikoff
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 5 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
Re: New Terminology Section Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Karen Coyle
Re: New Terminology Section Irene Polikoff
Re: New Terminology Section Karen Coyle
Re: New Terminology Section Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 8 May 2016

Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Eric Prud'hommeaux

Saturday, 7 May 2016

Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Karen Coyle
Re: New Terminology Section Karen Coyle
Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Irene Polikoff
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: New Terminology Section Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134 Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this? Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch
Re: New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch

Friday, 6 May 2016

Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Karen Coyle
Re: New Terminology Section Karen Coyle
Re: New Terminology Section Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Jim Amsden
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Miika Alonen
New Terminology Section Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 5 May 2016

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: regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting 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 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 Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification Holger Knublauch
regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting Eric Prud'hommeaux
Re: ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments Holger Knublauch
ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification Holger Knublauch
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 May 2016 Arnaud Le Hors

Wednesday, 4 May 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
agenda suggestion Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: scopes, filters, and focus [was Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec]] Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

scopes, filters, and focus [was Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec]] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas

Monday, 2 May 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
Re: shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-157 (constraint component support): the support for constraint components is incorrectly stated [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
Re: ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type Holger Knublauch
Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 1 May 2016

Re: ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint Holger Knublauch
shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Last message date: Friday, 27 May 2016 15:02:31 UTC