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

On 6/12/2015 14:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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) 

Ah OK. Thanks for pointing this out. I have added a sentence to clarify 
that calls to sh:hasShape must operate on their own temporary results 
graph, so that they don't interfere with the outer result graph:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/5aeeb35e52c5aa34e727a7c61a1b5e3356303b58

Thanks,
Holger

Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 07:10:57 UTC