Re: implementation of core SHACL (using proposed syntax)

On 14/04/2016 5:29, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 02:49 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> On 04/12/2016 10:40 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 1:11, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> This also confirms two limitations of this single-query-transformation
>>> approach (we had discussed this before):
>>> - inability to generate nested validation results
>>> - inability to handle recursion
>>> The current design uses sh:hasShape which doesn't have these limitations.
>>> Holger
> I just made a minor modification to the way that validation results are
> combined to allow for nested validation results.
> peter

Hi Peter,

you have made me curious here. Would you mind providing some details or 
an example? I assume we are talking about a case such as a sh:valueShape 
that fails, and its result object should point to other validation 
results for each value that does not match the shape, via sh:detail. So 
I was expecting to find some reference to sh:detail in your implementation.


PS: Apologies in advance for not responding to the other open email 
threads yet - I am trying to focus on updating my implementation and the 
advanced sections of the spec to the metamodel 3 draft. I will get back 
to the other emails once this block of work is completed.

Received on Monday, 18 April 2016 02:08:25 UTC