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

Friday, 30 September 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• 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] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• 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 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle
• 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 Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Karen Coyle

Thursday, 29 September 2016

• Re: shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0 RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: About WG process Re: the role of public-rdf-shapes@w3.org Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Test cases framework Holger Knublauch
• Re: Test cases framework Jose Emilio Labra Gayo
• shapes-ISSUE-181: SHACL conformance for partial validation reports [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: Public mailing list Simon Steyskal
• ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] Simon Steyskal
• shapes-ISSUE-180 (Path bnodes): Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: Test cases framework Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

• Re: About WG process Re: the role of public-rdf-shapes@w3.org Holger Knublauch
• Wiki page to keep track of current comments Karen Coyle
• Re: Public mailing list Karen Coyle

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

• Re: Test cases framework Holger Knublauch
• Public mailing list Holger Knublauch
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 27 September 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Test cases framework mark
• shapes-ACTION-43: Take a read through the spec and raise specific terminology issues as needed RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker

Monday, 26 September 2016

• RDF Data Shapes agenda for Tuesday 27 September 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• ISSUE-131: We could drop the shapesGraph argument from sh:hasShape Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 25 September 2016

• Recursion (ISSUE-22) Dimitris Kontokostas

Friday, 23 September 2016

• Re: Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO Karen Coyle
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-155 (property pair constraints): problems in the description of property pair constraints [SHACL Spec] Holger Knublauch
• ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 22 September 2016

• Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ISSUE-179 (label annotations): Should SHACL include a mechanism to specify display labels? [SHACL Spec] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• RDF Data Shapes WG Minutes for 21 September 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

• ISSUE-163 is done Karen Coyle
• shapes-ISSUE-178 (sh:message constraints): Should sh:message be permitted at constraints, too? [SHACL - Core] RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: SHACL draft renumbered? Holger Knublauch
• SHACL draft renumbered? Karen Coyle

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 September 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Bart van Leeuwen

Friday, 16 September 2016

• Re: Weekly call schedule Arnaud Le Hors

Thursday, 15 September 2016

• ISSUE-105: Updated proposal with sh:prefixes Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

• Re: Weekly call schedule Arnaud Le Hors
• RDF Data Shapes agenda for 14 September 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Weekly call schedule Karen Coyle

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

• Weekly call schedule Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Holger Knublauch

Monday, 12 September 2016

• Re: ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Andy Seaborne
• Re: SHACL Full Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Arnaud Le Hors

Sunday, 11 September 2016

• Re: ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Holger Knublauch

Friday, 9 September 2016

• Re: ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Dimitris Kontokostas
• RDF Data Shapes Minutes for 8 September 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Andy Seaborne
• ISSUE-137: Proposal to add sh:langShape Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 8 September 2016

• Re: ISSUE-105: Possible compromise Andy Seaborne
• Re: ISSUE-105: Possible compromise Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-105: Possible compromise markh
• Re: Meeting times (was: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 1 September 2016) Irene Polikoff
• Re: Meeting times (was: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 1 September 2016) Arnaud Le Hors
• Meeting times (was: RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 1 September 2016) Holger Knublauch
• RDF Data Shapes WG minutes for 1 September 2016 Arnaud Le Hors
• SHACL Full Holger Knublauch

Wednesday, 7 September 2016

• RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 September 2016 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• shapes-ISSUE-177 (abstract-syntax-disconnected): Abstract Syntax is disconnected from concrete syntax RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: ISSUE-71 Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Issues 71 & 137 Karen Coyle

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

• Re: ISSUE-71 Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-71 Karen Coyle
• Re: ISSUE-71 (was: ISSUE-176: Rules will not modify the data graph) Eric Prud'hommeaux
• ISSUE-71 (was: ISSUE-176: Rules will not modify the data graph) Holger Knublauch

Monday, 5 September 2016

• Re: ISSUE-176: Rules will not modify the data graph Karen Coyle
• Test cases framework Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 4 September 2016

• Re: ISSUE-176: Rules will not modify the data graph Holger Knublauch
• Re: ISSUE-176: Rules will not modify the data graph Karen Coyle

Saturday, 3 September 2016

• Re: shapes-ACTION-41: Create some wiki documentation exploring the requirements Karen Coyle

Thursday, 1 September 2016

• ISSUE-105: Possible compromise Holger Knublauch
• shapes-ACTION-42: Document library use cases for (remote) validation protocol RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• shapes-ACTION-41: Create some wiki documentation exploring the requirements RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-176: Rules will not modify the data graph Holger Knublauch

Last message date: Friday, 30 September 2016 15:52:27 UTC