- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:15:18 +0200
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hi! > In the sense of the recursion, it means > sh:hasShape() evaluates to true, with whatever consequences this has > on the And/Or logic. And what about Not or Xor? E.g assume there are 2 shapes within a sh:XorConstraint -> one of them is scoped, the other one not. If hasShape() returns true for the scoped shape (because its scope evaluates to false) and true for the unscoped one (because the node actually matches the shape), then the whole XorConstraint evaluates to false? Same with sh:NotConstraint.. if it contains a single scoped shape whose scope evaluates to false then sh:hasShape() returns true, thus sh:NotConstraint(true) = false? I also noticed that in the examples you've linked, sh:filterShape was used instead of sh:scopeShape. Is "filter" the new term for "scope"? If yes, I would recommend to adapt the specification respectively. cheers, simon --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys Am 2015-06-18 12:10, schrieb Holger Knublauch: > On 6/18/2015 18:58, Simon Steyskal wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Regarding the validation of a shape that has an attached >> sh:scopeShape, the specification currently says: >> >> "If the scope shape returns an error-level constraint violation, then >> the constraint must be ignored" > > If a constraint is ignored, the consequence is that no constraint > violation will be found. So the nodes that don't pass the scope/filter > test will match the shape. In the sense of the recursion, it means > sh:hasShape() evaluates to true, with whatever consequences this has > on the And/Or logic. > > I have added your two scenarios to our tests: > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/fbad86d1e379e00e1d362ede9a1e60d3cf02ef1b > > Results hopefully self-explanatory (ValidExampleInstance is OK, > InvalidExampleInstance not OK). > > Regards, > Holger > > >> >> I'm not 100% sure how this (may) influences the validation of >> And/Xor/Not/OR Constraints if they contain such a scoped shape whose >> scope validation returns an error. Futhermore, what happens if all >> shapes of And/Xor/Not/OR Constraints are scoped shapes having >> violated/non-matching scopes? >> >> cheers, >> simon >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Example1: AndConstraint containing 2 shapes, only 1 fires -> Will I >> get a Validation Error? >> >> ex:ScopedExampleShape >> a sh:Shape ; >> sh:property [ >> sh:predicate ex:someProperty ; >> sh:minCount 1 ; >> sh:scopeShape [ >> sh:property [ >> sh:predicate ex:requiredProperty ; >> sh:hasValue ex:requiredValue ; >> ] >> ] >> ] . >> >> ex:NotScopedExampleShape >> a sh:Shape ; >> sh:property [ >> sh:predicate ex:someProperty ; >> sh:maxCount 1 ; >> ] . >> >> ex:ExampleClass >> a sh:ShapeClass; >> sh:constraint [ >> a sh:AndConstraint ; >> sh:shapes ( >> ex:ScopedExampleShape >> ex:NotScopedExampleShape >> ) >> ] >> >> ex:ScopedShapeExampleInstance >> ex:someProperty ex:someValue ; >> ex:requiredProperty ex:notRequiredValue . >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Example2: NotConstraint containing 1 shape that does not fire -> empty >> NotConstraint? >> >> ex:ScopedExampleShape >> a sh:Shape ; >> sh:property [ >> sh:predicate ex:someProperty ; >> sh:minCount 1 ; >> sh:scopeShape [ >> sh:property [ >> sh:predicate ex:requiredProperty ; >> sh:hasValue ex:requiredValue ; >> ] >> ] >> ] . >> >> ex:ExampleClass >> a sh:ShapeClass; >> sh:constraint [ >> a sh:NotConstraint ; >> sh:shape ex:ScopedExampleShape; >> ] >> >> ex:ScopedShapeExampleInstance >> ex:someProperty ex:someValue ; >> ex:requiredProperty ex:notRequiredValue . >>
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2015 11:15:46 UTC