W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2016

Re: proposed set of SHACL tests

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:48:30 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <569C6E9E.1000401@topquadrant.com>
On 15/01/2016 3:08 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I did run a copy of your tests and noticed that my engine currently 
> has trouble when a sh:Shape is a blank node (I will investigate later).

This is now fixed and shapes that are bnodes should work.

Holger


> If you turn the shape in simpleShape.ttl into a URI node for now, you 
> will only have 2 remaining test failures. Those are due to the 
> (already) discussed issue that the validation is performed over the 
> shape definitions, and the SHACL graph currently requires sh:class to 
> point at classes.
>
> HTH
> Holger
>
> PS: If you are still having github access issues, maybe talk to Eric?
>
>
> On 12/01/2016 3:16 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> On 01/10/2016 07:14 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> thanks for playing with the test framework. I am still catching up 
>>> on a number
>>> of fronts and may not have time to look into the details this week. 
>>> A quick
>>> scan through your results indicates
>>>
>>> - My current test framework also validates the shape definitions. A 
>>> symptom of
>>> this is that, for example, values of sh:class are expected to be 
>>> instances of
>>> rdfs:Class. The idea in my API is that this schema-level testing can be
>>> switched off using the "filtered" argument of
>>> ModelConstraintValidator.validateModel. ValueTestClass calls this 
>>> with false,
>>> i.e. everything will be validated including shapes.
>> The problem is that these results look just like data validation 
>> results,
>> which is problematic in my view.
>>
>>> - Inferencing is switched off by default, as defined by the spec. So 
>>> you
>>> should not expect rdfs:range and rdfs:domain to impact validation.
>> Well that was my expectation.  However it does not appear to be the 
>> case.  In
>> particular, the use of a node as the target of an rdf:type link 
>> appears to
>> make the node be an instance of rdfs:Class.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 18 January 2016 04:49:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:29 UTC