Re: SHACL implementation on RDFUnit

>
> >
> > some differences with Holger's (current) implementation
> > - sh:valueShape implementation is evaluated using a bottom-up approach
> and creates separate checks for every sub-shape/facet. IIRC Holger's does
> the same thing but delegates this the SPARQL engine with sh:hasShape while
> I keep the logic in RDFUnit.
> > - I plan to do the same with sh:and / sh:or / sh:not but to support that
> I need some major refactoring on my test execution engine
>
> to make it clear for people not too technically involved, I mention this
> only because it can affect the number of returned violations. My approach
> may return more errors and at lower level than Holger's. This is not
> necessarily better or worse, just a different approach.
>
>
> Yes this sounds good, any engine should be permitted to return more output
> as long as the official minimum is covered. Are you linking the extra
> results to the parent result with sh:detail?
>

Atm I have only the child results (no parent) and it is not clear to me
what is the best way to report that to the user, create a dummy parent or
give some more context.
Once I have a draft ready we can have an offline chat to discuss the
details.

Dimitris


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT