W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > August 2015

shapes-ISSUE-79 (Validation functions): Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration [SHACL Spec]

From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:29:14 +0000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1ZPiGY-0007xl-FA@maia.w3.org>
shapes-ISSUE-79 (Validation functions): Cleaner separation between value checking and property iteration [SHACL Spec]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/79

Raised by: Holger Knublauch
On product: SHACL Spec

I was never quite happy with one aspect of how SHACL templates (including the Core templates) were internally defined. To illustrate the problem, this is how sh:datatype is currently defined:


sh:AbstractDatatypePropertyConstraint
	a sh:ConstraintTemplate ;
	rdfs:subClassOf sh:AbstractPropertyConstraint ;
        ...
	sh:message "Values must have datatype {?datatype}" ;
	sh:sparql """
		SELECT ?this (?this AS ?subject) ?predicate ?object ?datatype
		WHERE {
			?this ?predicate ?object .
			FILTER (!sh:hasDatatype(?object, ?datatype)) .
		}
		""" ;
.

The SPARQL query above does two things:
a) It iterates over all property values
b) It FILTERs each of these values.

This is a recurring pattern for many property constraints. I would like us to make this design pattern more explicit so that it becomes the following:

sh:AbstractDatatypePropertyConstraint
	a sh:PropertyValueConstraintTemplate ;
	rdfs:subClassOf sh:AbstractPropertyConstraint ;
        ...
	sh:message "Values must have datatype {?datatype}" ;
	sh:validationFunction sh:hasDatatype ;
.

Instead of pointing at a SPARQL query that does everything, such constraints only point at a Function, which must take a value as input and return a boolean. The engine can produce the surrounding SPARQL automatically, and can even directly inject the body of the sh:hasDatatype function.

This design has the following advantages:
- It makes the contract more explicit, modular and arguably cleaner
- It allows to focus on what really matters, reducing clutter
- It makes it easier to reuse the logic, especially for inverse property constraints (and sh:Arguments)
- It makes it easier to optimize execution - if only a boolean result is needed, then a code generator can more easily combine them into a single FILTER such as sh:hasDatatype(...) && sh:hasNodeKind(...)
- It lowers the implementation costs for other languages like JavaScript - these can focus on implementing the functions
- It raises the abstraction, e.g. in JavaScript these checks can be simple variable comparisons, regardless of how the surrounding iteration happened
- The key snippets are also reusable inside of SPARQL expressions, because they are also SPARQL functions.

The only disadvantage that I can think of is that there is a little bit more work for the engine implementers, because this requires a couple of new classes and properties to work correctly. However, I'd rather push the complexity to the engine developers and have a cleaner overall design for the end users. And, nobody is forced to use this new pattern - anyone can still use the current mechanism using sh:sparql.

I have implemented this on a test branch, and a new Turtle file can be found here:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-79/shacl/shacl.shacl.ttl

I have not yet updated the textual documents - I'd love to hear from others on the general direction before I spend more time on this.
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 02:29:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:26 UTC