Monday, 27 February 2017
- WG issues by submitter
- Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
- Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
- Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
- Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
- Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
- ISSUE-234: Started wiki page for response
- shapes-ISSUE-234 (Peter 2017-02-22): Public comment https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2017Feb/0165.html [SHACL Spec]
Friday, 24 February 2017
- Re: i18n (was: horizontal review)
- i18n (was: horizontal review)
- ISSUE-232: Wiki page to collect security & privacy ideas
- Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
- Re: number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
- ISSUE-233: Added section on sh:shapesGraphWellFormed
- Created page on postponed features
- horizontal review
- ISSUE-222: status
- number of individuals who have commented on SHACL
- shapes-ISSUE-232 Security & Privacy Sections
- RE: WG meeting 2017-02-22
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
- WG meeting 2017-02-22
- shapes-ISSUE-233 (Shapes syntax checking): Should we require support for checking of well-formed shapes graphs? [SHACL Spec]
Monday, 20 February 2017
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
- shapes-ISSUE-232 (Privacy and Security): Respec suggests a section on privacy and security [SHACL Spec]
- shapes-ACTION-48: Produce a json-ld @context draft
- shapes-ISSUE-231 (sh:message in components): Could we allow sh:message for constraint components, not just validators? [SHACL - SPARQL]
- Re: wrong name for exactly one
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
Friday, 10 February 2017
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-229 (results included in a validation report): Respond to the comment about what results to be included in a validation report [SHACL - Core]
- shapes-ISSUE-230 ($this and $PATH in sh:sparql): Inconsistency in the use of $this and $PATH in sh:sparql vs constraint components [SHACL - SPARQL]
- shapes-ISSUE-229 (results included in a validation report): Respond to the comment about what results to be included in a validation report [SHACL - Core]
- shapes-ISSUE-228 (Form of the validation report): Respond to the comment about the form of the validation report [SHACL - Core]
Thursday, 9 February 2017
- shapes-ISSUE-227 (SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS): Behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components that use EXISTS [SHACL - SPARQL]
- Compact Syntax? - Fwd: [RDF AP] Update on RDF validation at W3C
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-226 (JSON-LD @context): Should the WG produce a JSON-LD @context
- shapes-ISSUE-226 (JSON-LD @context): Should the WG produce a JSON-LD @context
- Fwd: loss of functionality
- Fixed an incorrect IRI
- ISSUE-139: Some parameters now lead to ill-formed node shapes
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
- Re: Added a JSON-LD example
- Re: Added a JSON-LD example
- Re: WG Meeting 2017-02-08
- Re: Added a JSON-LD example
- shapes-ISSUE-225 (Validation Report details): Respond to "Validation results and reports" [SHACL - Core]
- Re: declaring (practically) insensible shapes to be ill-formed
- Re: declaring (practically) insensible shapes to be ill-formed
Tuesday, 7 February 2017
- declaring (practically) insensible shapes to be ill-formed
- Added a JSON-LD example
- WG Meeting 2017-02-08
Monday, 6 February 2017
- Re: [pfpschneider@gmail.com: [Moderator Action] Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02]
- [pfpschneider@gmail.com: [Moderator Action] Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02]
- Re: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) Working Draft of 2017-02-02
Sunday, 5 February 2017
- shapes-ISSUE-224 (Improved shape type definitions): Can we improve the language around the use of rdf:types for shapes [SHACL - Core]
- shapes-ISSUE-223 (Shapes mismatching type): Should we disallow shapes with mismatching type [SHACL - Core]