ISSUE-158: Request to review change
shapes-ISSUE-193 (Focus nodes): Targets can be refined; focus nodes do not change
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 26 October 2016
Meeting time slot and daylight shifting
sh:in vs. sh:value
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 26 October 2016
Stem difference between ShEx and SHACL
RDF Data Shapes WG Virtual F2F poll
Sample comments
proposal to close issues related to sh:hasShape
RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 19 October 2016
shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are filters shapes?) - final questions
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are filters shapes?) - final questions
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-192 (Are focus nodes shapes?): Should focus nodes be of type sh:Shape? if not, then what?
Re: an alternative proposal for partition
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 October 2016
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 11 October 2016
shapes-ISSUE-191 (Parameter value types): Should the value types of parameters be constraints [SHACL Spec]
ISSUE-92: sh:partition
Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed
- Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed
- Re: shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed
FW: shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined
Meeting days
Decomposing shapes
shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-190 (Shape identification): Identifying the shapes in a SHACL Full shapes graph [SHACL - SPARQL]
ISSUE-131: Proposal to close
- Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close
ISSUE-182: What else is missing?
Action: format comments page as table - done
RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 4 October 2016
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 11 October 2016
Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core]
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core]
shapes-ISSUE-189 (validation trigger): Clarify validation report trigger in section 3
shapes-ISSUE-188 (define validation): "Validation" needs to be defined
shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-187 (severity and message): sh:severity and sh:message are not defined as shapes graph properties
shapes-ISSUE-186 (validaton report properties): Properties in validation report mis-use shapes graph properties
Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close
ISSUE-93 and ISSUE-94 (attn: Harold)
apologies
"property values"
RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 4 October 2016
Terminology section restructuring
Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec])
- Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec])
- Re: Node vs focus node (Was: Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec])
shapes-ISSUE-185 (processing order): Processing order for filters and constraints [SHACL - Core]
Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec]
shapes-ISSUE-184 (paths & value nodes): Property paths and value nodes [SHACL - Core]
shapes-ISSUE-183 (undefined term): Eliminating the term "Undefined" [SHACL - SPARQL]
Declare and define
Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0