Looks like this issue s a dependency for other issues and better be closed sooner than later I created a proposal here https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-22:_Treatment_of_recursive_shape_definitions On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > During recent discussions, I noticed that I made a mistake not objecting > to our previous resolution on the handling of recursion: > > https://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-shapes-minutes.html#resolution04 > > The resolution above talks about statically excluding recursion: as soon > as shape declarations are causing loops, the shapes graph would be invalid. > > This is an unnecessary restriction and excludes real-world scenarios such > as tree structures. In tree structures, a parent may state that its > children must have the same Shape, and algorithmically there is no problem > because there can never be an infinite loop. > > PROPOSAL: The starting point for recursion in SHACL is that dependency > loops are invalid at run-time. > > In other words, a run-time failure would be reported if the validation > causes infinite loops (same node against same shape). This is how > sh:hasShape already works. > > Holger > > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2016 21:11:28 UTC