Re: shapes-ISSUE-63 (sh:hasShape): Nested shapes: sh:hasShape function versus recursive SPARQL code generation [SHACL Spec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 06/10/2015 05:58 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> On 6/11/2015 10:35, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 06/10/2015 04:40 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> On 6/11/15 3:07 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> It may have been convenient to use sh:hasShape for or, Xor, and
>>>> not, but the results are not correct, as violations are not
>>>> correctly defined.
>>> Are you referring to the fact that recursion is not specified yet, or
>>> in what other cases are results not correct?
>> Using sh:hasShape here produces incorrect results for violations.
> 
> I still don't understand what you mean. Can you give an example (apart
> from recursion)?


The issue has to do with how many violations are reported for nested shapes.
 The definition of sh:hasShape requires that it behave the same as running a
top-level validation against the focus node, i.e., a focus node that does
not have the sh:hasValue value results in a reported error even if inside an
or where the other branch is OK.

So EXAMPLE 17 in http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ would report an
error violation then though the outer shape matches the resource (but maybe
only sometimes, depending on the execution order of the query in
http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-or)


peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVemSbAAoJECjN6+QThfjz0YgIAL5a3EV/ElTuQZjuyncUUlVd
IkW50uMi0xyNY6bI9xXRJ3sNkVMcfQ1UrC87GKRWgPWly+OBcRf94geQpA+a80pZ
5DfjJJSgTJ4RNWlvKonMoHQKtPineiW/uBIpYgjDSyUyr9wFNInTOl2uEihZgFIE
oB+iSoXi/uGZTxkVRZHDmUf/LCqLwUu5HY/xB7A8oJPQjvRqNsyHISMcqeTW9b5Y
uRa8qvXarg7zE7X1mTAoezJaOyi7z6H5GE1TejwMLHZI1FmonuuQnz85oO3OsUqy
58mFUIU4F9GlP2TOdpj7s25JvD72k+6omhXSePunn2UYdVgTmesOyVAUNHZ4Cks=
=ilcP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 04:49:06 UTC