Re: definition of validation including scopes and filters

+1

-- Arthur

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 8:20 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Here is my take on defining SHACL validation.  This definition explicitly
> considers scopes and filters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An RDF data graph validates against a shapes graph if it validates against
> all the shapes in the shapes graph.
> 
> An RDF data graph validates against a shape in a shapes graph whenever all
> nodes in scope for the shape validate against the shape.  (So if a shape has
> no scopes then it doesn't trigger any validation.)
> 
> A node is in scope for a shape whenever it is in any scope of the shape.
> 
> A node validates against a shape whenever it either does not validate
> against some filter of the shape or it does validate against the
> constraints of the shape.
> 
> A node validates against a constraint whenever it either does not validate
> against some filter of the constraint or it does validate against the constraint.
> 
> 
> Each kind of constraint has its own definition of which nodes validate
> against it.  For SPARQL-based constraints this ends up being defined as
> the query not producing an error-level violation for the node.
> 
> 
> 
> Each kind of scope has its own definition of which nodes are in it, roughly as
> follows:
> 
> A node is in an individual scope iff it is the same as the scope.
> 
> A node is in a class scope iff there is an rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf*
> relationship between it and the scope.
> 
> A node is in a property scope iff ....
> 
> A node is in an inverse property scope iff ....
> 
> A node is in an all subjects scope iff it is the subject of a triple in the
> graph.
> 
> A node is in an all objects scope iff it is the object of a triple in the
> graph.
> 
> A node is in a SPARQL-based scope iff it is a node in the graph and the scope
> query returns true on it.
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 8 January 2016 04:13:00 UTC