Re: graph containing comprehensive set of ill-formed shapes

Peter,

If your implementation is SHACL Core only, how could SHACL-SPARQL constructs affect it? It would seem to me that the values in the sh:spraql triples would be no different to it than values in the ex:foo (or any user defined predicate) triples.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:45 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My alt-SHACL implementation does complete syntax checking, signalling whenever
> in encounters a shape or path or list that is not correctly formed.  My
> implementation has a strict mode that signals whenever the putative shapes
> graph contains anything that violates any of the SHACL Core syntax rules or
> contains a recursive shape or contains SHACL-SPARQL constructs that could
> affect validation.  To test this checking I had put together an RDF graph
> containing a comprehensive set of constructs that need to be checked.
> 
> I just updated this graph, and the associated checking code, to incorporate
> the numerous additional syntax rules that were added when the SHACL document
> became a candidate recommendation.   I include the graph here.  It can be
> turned into a comprehensive set of syntax test cases for SHACL Core by just
> separating it into small graphs each containing one of the test shapes.
> 
> The amount of code required to do complete syntax checking was quite modest.
> Running my implementation over the graph was helpful in finding bugs such as
> incorrect recursion checks in the path code.  I strongly recommend that every
> SHACL implementation be run on every shape in this graph.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> <syntax.ttl>

Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 10:39:41 UTC