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

Monday, 31 October 2016

• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-158: Request to review change Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-158: Request to review change Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Eric Prud'hommeaux
• ISSUE-158: Request to review change Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 30 October 2016

• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Holger Knublauch

Friday, 28 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are filters shapes?) - final questions Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are filters shapes?) - final questions Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Karen Coyle

Thursday, 27 October 2016

• shapes-ISSUE-193 (Focus nodes): Targets can be refined; focus nodes do not change RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 26 October 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Meeting time slot and daylight shifting Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Irene Polikoff
• Re: sh:in vs. sh:value Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Eric Prud'hommeaux
• RE: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 October 2016 Simon Steyskal
• Re: sh:in vs. sh:value Holger Knublauch
• sh:in vs. sh:value Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Holger Knublauch
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 October 2016 Arnaud Le Hors

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

• Re: Stem difference between ShEx and SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Stem difference between ShEx and SHACL Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Holger Knublauch

Monday, 24 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Karen Coyle

Friday, 21 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 20 October 2016

• RDF Data Shapes WG Virtual F2F poll Arnaud Le Hors
• Sample comments Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Karen Coyle
• proposal to close issues related to sh:hasShape Dimitris Kontokostas
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 19 October 2016 Arnaud Le Hors

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what? RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed mark
• Re: an alternative proposal for partition Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 October 2016 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 October 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 11 October 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: FW: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined Karen Coyle
• Re: FW: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed Holger Knublauch
• ISSUE-92: sh:partition Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed Holger Knublauch

Monday, 17 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed markh
• Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed markh
• FW: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined Irene Polikoff
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-184 (paths & value nodes): Property paths and value nodes [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 16 October 2016

• Moving call to Wednesday ok? Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Decomposing shapes Karen Coyle
• Re: Decomposing shapes Irene Polikoff
• Re: Decomposing shapes Holger Knublauch

Saturday, 15 October 2016

• Re: Meeting days Arnaud Le Hors

Friday, 14 October 2016

• Meeting days Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• Re: Decomposing shapes Irene Polikoff
• Re: Decomposing shapes Karen Coyle
• Re: Decomposing shapes Holger Knublauch
• Re: Decomposing shapes Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Decomposing shapes Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 13 October 2016

• Re: Decomposing shapes Holger Knublauch
• Re: optional features (was Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close) Holger Knublauch
• Re: optional features (was Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close) Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Karen Coyle
• Re: Decomposing shapes Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] Irene Polikoff
• Re: Decomposing shapes Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Decomposing shapes Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Dimitris Kontokostas
• shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Dimitris Kontokostas
• ISSUE-131: Proposal to close Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

• ISSUE-182: What else is missing? Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] Karen Coyle
• Invalid is undefined Re: shapes-ISSUE-183 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-183 (undefined term): Eliminating the term "Undefined" [SHACL - SPARQL] Holger Knublauch

Monday, 10 October 2016

• Action: format comments page as table - done Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-183 (undefined term): Eliminating the term "Undefined" [SHACL - SPARQL] Karen Coyle
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 4 October 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 11 October 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties Karen Coyle

Sunday, 9 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-186 (validaton report properties): Properties in validation report mis-use shapes graph properties Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Karen Coyle
• shapes-ISSUE-189 (validation trigger): Clarify validation report trigger in section 3 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-186 (validaton report properties): Properties in validation report mis-use shapes graph properties RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Saturday, 8 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Holger Knublauch

Friday, 7 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 6 October 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Holger Knublauch
• ISSUE-93 and ISSUE-94 (attn: Harold) Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) Karen Coyle
• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) Dimitris Kontokostas

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) Karen Coyle
• apologies mark
• Re: "property values" Karen Coyle
• Re: "property values" Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 4 October 2016 Holger Knublauch

Monday, 3 October 2016

• "property values" Karen Coyle
• Re: Terminology section restructuring Irene Polikoff
• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 4 October 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) Karen Coyle
• Re: Terminology section restructuring Karen Coyle
• Terminology section restructuring Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) Irene Polikoff

Sunday, 2 October 2016

• Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]) Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• shapes-ISSUE-185 (processing order): Processing order for filters and constraints [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Dimitris Kontokostas
• shapes-ISSUE-184 (paths & value nodes): Property paths and value nodes [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ISSUE-183 (undefined term): Eliminating the term "Undefined" [SHACL - SPARQL] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Declare and define Arnaud Le Hors

Saturday, 1 October 2016

• Declare and define Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Karen Coyle

Last message date: Monday, 31 October 2016 23:29:42 UTC