- From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:00:30 +0300
- To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
- Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+u4+a0HecMQwNjv=HDj=u0Qbj1zzFScLps+_-33+Y1t+K+-VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Replied before I saw your answer Jose On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > As I said in my reply, I suggest we start we a simple pass/fail approach until we finalize the reporting format, it could take a long time to resolve this. > 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. > I think this comes down to the closed shapes req and we'd need test cases for that first :) We can use it for bad SPARQL queries / select variables and maybe the compact syntax later on > 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 > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Research Group: http://aksw.org Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 08:01:25 UTC