- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 12:52:18 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
FYI I have added 17 test cases covering various SHACL features, grouped into Core and SPARQL: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/2833fc2728dfd7816d85a54bdead249f430cf56d For the Java engine that I am working on, I have implemented a test framework for the provided format, and didn't encounter any issues so far. Thanks Holger On 5/22/2015 10:04, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Thanks to Jose and Dimitris to get the test suite started. A few > suggestions > > - sht:schema is probably not the best name - what about > sht:shapesGraph (and sht:dataGraph)? > - sht:schema-format and shr:data-format should be optional - can be > derived from file suffix > - If SHACL is expressed in itself then many sht:WellFormedSchema test > cases can be handled with sht:Validate > - ms:result cannot only be true or false. Some tests produce multiple > constraint violations, the violations may be warnings only, and we > need to be able to verify the error details. While true may be > sufficient for some tests and implementations, we will need the > ability to point at a graph with results, or (even better) allow the > expected results to be stated inline, e.g. > > mf:result [ > a sh:Error ; > sh:subject ex:JohnDoe ; > ] ... (multiple values allowed) > > In those tests, sh:message should usually be optional. > > Thanks > Holger >
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 02:54:18 UTC