Re: Test cases format

Ok thanks for the pointer. As far as I understand it, the results so far 
are only booleans of whether a given node matches a shape. I would hope 
we extend this with the full result of the validation (once this 
vocabulary gets agreed upon) so that implementers can verify that their 
engine returns meaningful results.

I also think we need a way to validate a complete graph with all nodes 
using the built-in node selection properties sh:nodeShape and rdf:type. 
This would then also include global constraints.

Regarding the two Syntax tests, I can see why they created them for 
SPARQL - to test the SPARQL string parsers. However, for SHACL it sounds 
like we'd mainly need structural tests of the syntax. Currently the 
draft of the SHACL schema is self-validating, i.e. it is possible to 
validate SHACL shape definitions using SHACL itself. As a result, we may 
not need the Syntax tests.

Finally, if we only rely on the mf: namespace, how could we add new 
features if we need them?

Holger


On 4/2/2015 15:04, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
> In the last F2F, it was already resolved to employ a format similar to 
> what the W3c has employed for other specifications like RDF. In fact, 
> Dimitris and me were assigned the task to create the test-suite.
>
> We already started this web page that explains the format:
>
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/
>
> However, we didn't add more tests because we were waiting until there 
> were more consensus on the language constructs and the error messages 
> of the validator.
>
> I would propose to start with simple tests for the more basic language 
> constructs and to add gradually more tests.
>
> In any case, as you can see in the web page, the format of the 
> manifest file allow us to signal the test status as proposed, 
> accepted, etc.
>
> Best regards, Jose Labra
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Holger Knublauch 
> <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
>     Could we start defining a format for our test cases? I have
>     attached two files illustrating a format that I used for a few
>     test cases while writing my prototype. Each test case consists of
>     two parts:
>
>     1) A SHACL file including instances
>     2) A manifest file declaring the tests to run and the expected output
>
>     Both files are in Turtle, and the manifest file uses a simple
>     ontology that can be found at the end of
>
>     http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/shacl.shacl.ttl
>
>     Of course this is just one possible format among many others, I
>     welcome alternatives. Yet I would like to point out that it may be
>     beneficial to have an RDF based exchange format of such test
>     cases, because people may maintain and publish the test cases
>     together with their data models, as linked data.
>
>     Regards,
>     Holger
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- Jose Labra
>