shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec]

shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec]

Raised by: Harold Solbrig
On product: SHACL Spec

Portions of the spec describes what it means to be a compliant SHACL "engine".  As an example, Section 3 states "Compliant SHACL engines MUST support all these constraints".  Other compliance points, however, appear to contain recommendations about what would constitute a good SHACL schema.  As an example, section 3.1 on Property constraints states that a sh:property reference SHOULD have an rdf:type triple.  From the SHACL engine perspective, there is nothing we can do with this assertion, because SHOULD is only a recommendation, so an engine will need to work correctly whether or not the rdf:type is actually present.

Similarly, the document recommends the use of rdfs:comments and rdfs:labels, but there doesn't appear to be any assertions about how this would change the behavior of compliant SHACL engines.

I would propose that we create a new document style with a different format that will allow us to include all of these these requirements and suggestions but would differentiate SHACL requirements from "good coding style" recommendations.

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 20:48:00 UTC