Re: Test cases format

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

>  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 agree with that. I was waiting until we have more consensus on the
validation results format. Maybe, we should try to resolve that issue
first.


> 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.
>

Not sure about that. If the syntax is for example RDF, we could at least
have some tests with bad RDF syntax to check that the SHACL implementation
handles them appropriately.

Later on, if we accommodate other syntactic possibilities similar to ShExC
(or whatever is called), those tests could also be handled.

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

In the case of RDF, they used rdft as:

@prefix rdft:   <http://www.w3.org/ns/rdftest#> .

We may have something similar and use sht as:

@prefix sht:   <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacltest#> .

But I am not sure if it is possible to add that namespace.

Best regards, Jose Labra

 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>
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
-- Jose Labra