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

[Editorial] Moving section 5 into section 3.3?

[EDITORIAL] Scope examples

agenda suggestion

agenda suggestion for this week

AW: Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016

constraints vs constraining + validating (was Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016)

ISSUE-105: Prefixes in SPARQL fragments

ISSUE-110: Can we close this?

ISSUE-133 several options for syntax simplification and regularization

ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations

ISSUE-135: Proposed changes to implement syntax simplification

ISSUE-141: Proposal for sh:type

ISSUE-78: Proposal for Abstract Classes Constraint

New Terminology Section

On various syntax issues

primer.md

proposed reply to Tom Baker [was Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016]

RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 12 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 5 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 12 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 19 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 26 May 2016

RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 5 May 2016

regrets

regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting

scopes, filters, and focus [was Re: shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec]]

Shall we redo the 1.3 example

Shall we redo the 1.3 example (was: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148))

shapes-ACTION-37: Check what happens in the shex extension that has severities

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

shapes-ISSUE-159: [Editorial] Eliminate "scope class" from 2.1.n [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-160 (Generalize sh:valueShape): Shall we generalize sh:valueShape to sh:shape [SHACL - Core]

shapes-ISSUE-161 (terminology): [EDITORIAL] terminology fixups [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-162 (section 1.2 editorial): [EDITORIAL] Section 1.2 [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-163 ("constraining"): should "constraining" and other forms of "constraint" be used less in the specification [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-164 (mutable graphs): [EDITORIAL] Section 1.4 (and maybe other places) looks as if graphs are mutable [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-165 (shapes and scopes introduction): [EDITORIAL] The introduction of shapes and scopes has confused a reader [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-166 (two documents): separate out advanced part of specification [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-167 (implicit class scope): [EDITORIAL] implicit class scope gives impression of inferencing

Simplification of scopes section

Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)

the current situation with respect to ISSUE-134

Transitive?

type and instance and subclass in SHACL documents

what is inferencing?

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