- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:31 -0400
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Peter,
I assume the point of this example is that it contains a blank node
which makes it problematic to have two separate SPARQL calls.
It seems to me that whatever mechanism is used to associate a shape
with a node would provide a starting point from which one could
navigate to all subsequent nodes using suitable property paths. This
would provide enough context for subsequent SPARQL calls. However,
this certainly complicates the implementation.
-- Arthur
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:58 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-74 (SPARQL endpoint support): Should SHACL support vallidating RDF graphs accessible via unmodified SPARQL endpoints [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/74
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> Should it be possible to validate SHACL shapes on RDF graphs that are only accessible via unmodified SPARQL endpoints?
>
> For example, suppose
> G = { < ex:a ex:r _:a .
> _:a ex:q ex:b . }
> is a data graph to be validated against the shapes
> S1 = ex:r S2 [1,1]
> S2 = ex:q [1,1]
>
> Should it be possible to perform the validation if the only access G is via SPARQL queries?
>
> If this is possible, it should also be possible for very large data graphs.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 18:01:58 UTC