public-rdf-shapes@w3.org from December 2016 by date

Saturday, 17 December 2016

• Re: Making SHACL Work For Industry Terry Roach

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

• Making SHACL Work For Industry Smith, Tim

Thursday, 15 December 2016

• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Jeremy J Carroll

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Simon Spero
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Irene Polikoff
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL David Booth
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Simon Spero
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Simon Spero
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL David Price
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL Holger Knublauch
• Re: "RDF node" and "node" in SHACL document Holger Knublauch

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

• on the turtle serialization of SHACL Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Irene Polikoff

Monday, 12 December 2016

• Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good Adam Kimball

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

• The flexibility of SPARQL/SPIN in SHACL is needed Steve Ray
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Karen Coyle
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Irene Polikoff
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Enough already Irene Polikoff
• Re: Enough already Karen Coyle
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Gray, Alasdair J G
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Enough already Irene Polikoff
• Re: Enough already Holger Knublauch

Monday, 12 December 2016

• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Dean Allemang
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Irene Polikoff
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Dean Allemang
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Arnaud Le Hors
• Fw: WG Outlook Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Eric Prud'hommeaux
• Re: difference between sh:hasValue and sh:in Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: The future of SHACL Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: Enough already Arnaud Le Hors
• Re: difference between sh:hasValue and sh:in Holger Knublauch
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Dean Allemang
• Re: on sh:resultPath Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: difference between sh:hasValue and sh:in Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: on sh:resultPath Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: "RDF node" and "node" in SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• The future of SHACL HODGES Jr, John
• Re: "RDF node" and "node" in SHACL document Holger Knublauch
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Karen Coyle
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: "RDF node" and "node" in SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: "RDF node" and "node" in SHACL document Karen Coyle
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Holger Knublauch
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Holger Knublauch
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Gregg Kellogg
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: difference between sh:hasValue and sh:in Holger Knublauch

Sunday, 11 December 2016

• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Holger Knublauch
• "RDF node" and "node" in SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• difference between sh:hasValue and sh:in Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Martynas Jusevičius
• Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already) Gray, Alasdair J G
• SPARQL Maintenance (EXISTS) Community Group [Was: Enough already] Andy Seaborne
• Re: Enough already Terry Roach

Saturday, 10 December 2016

• Re: on sh:resultPath Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Enough already Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: Enough already Karen Coyle
• Re: Enough already Bart van Leeuwen
• Re: Enough already Martynas Jusevičius
• Enough already Terry Roach
• Re: on sh:resultPath Holger Knublauch
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Holger Knublauch

Friday, 9 December 2016

• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Andy Seaborne
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on sh:resultPath Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Andy Seaborne
• Re: on sh:resultPath Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: why retain sh:predicate in property constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Re: on sh:resultPath Holger Knublauch
• on divergence between textual and SPARQL definitions Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on sh:resultPath Holger Knublauch
• Re: on sh:resultPath Holger Knublauch
• Re: on validation reports Irene Polikoff
• on sh:resultPath Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on validation reports Holger Knublauch

Thursday, 8 December 2016

• Re: on validation reports Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Tuesday, 6 December 2016

• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Holger Knublauch
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Irene Polikoff
• Re: on validation reports Holger Knublauch
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Holger Knublauch
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: more sloppiness in the SHACL document Holger Knublauch

Monday, 5 December 2016

• Re: on values Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: on values Irene Polikoff

Sunday, 4 December 2016

• on validation reports Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• more sloppiness in the SHACL document Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Solbrig, Harold R., M.S.
• Re: on values Simon Spero
• Re: on values Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Irene Polikoff
• Re: on values Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Irene Polikoff

Saturday, 3 December 2016

• Re: on values Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Irene Polikoff
• Re: on values Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Irene Polikoff
• Re: on values Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Irene Polikoff
• Re: on values Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• Re: on values Irene Polikoff
• on validation reports Peter F. Patel-Schneider
• on values Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Thursday, 1 December 2016

• Re: why retain sh:predicate in property constraints? Holger Knublauch
• Re: a problem with shapes and constraints Dimitris Kontokostas
• Re: why retain sh:predicate in property constraints? Dimitris Kontokostas

Last message date: Saturday, 17 December 2016 09:18:02 UTC