- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:40:30 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> On 24 Mar 2015, at 15:35, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe that the current design of SHACL > (https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/) will make recursive shapes very > problematic. > > Both variations in > http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-AbstractValueShapePropertyConst > raint > do not work correctly. (Consider how the designs would work on the SHACL > versions of the examples in > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0377.html.) > > Does anyone have a proposal on how to handle recursive shapes that does not > give rise to difficulties? If SHACL supports levels like ERROR, WARNING, INFO, then another possible design would be that recursive shape definitions are allowed. But when a SHACL processor is asked to validate a graph against such a shape, it produces a report with a special level such as RECURSIVE_SHAPE_NOT_CHECKED. It may be prudent to say in the spec that recursive shape definitions may only have a level lower than ERROR. So, the author of the SHACL document needs to acknowledge in advance that SHACL processors won’t check this particular part of the constraint by giving it a non-ERROR level. Richard
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 14:41:03 UTC