Re: invocation conflicting with sh:scope*

I'm fine with creating a separation between scoping and constraint 
definitions, although I think that SHACL should provide both or else it 
cannot be a full, programmable solution to the RDF validation problem. 
By separating them, a different solution to either function could be 
substituted in the future.

kc

On 6/22/16 10:26 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2016-06-23 09:15+1000]
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> when a shape is validated as part of a "nested" sh:shape, sh:and, sh:not etc
>> then its declared scope is ignored. Only its sh:filterShapes will be
>> considered.
>
> Understood, but this isn't about "nested" shapes. Many use cases
> involve a sort of late binding where the invocation context determines
> pairings of node/shape for validation. UC4 is explicit about this, but
> I expect the case where a user interface invokes sh:hasShape directly
> to be an extremely common case in linked data.
>
> We could get more reusability out of the schema by moving sh:scope*
> into a separate "control graph" (Peter's term), allowing that schema
> to be applied to other data that doesn't have e.g. a discriminating
> type arc.
>
>
>> This is one of the reasons why the current spec states that node constraints
>> are validated against each focus node individually, because the set of scope
>> nodes is relatively orthogonal to the shape's current execution context.
>>
>> HTH
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 23/06/2016 8:03, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> Is a validation engine expected to always honor sh:scope*?
>>>
>>> Apart from cardinality constraints on subjects of type arcs, validations boil down to various choreographies to invoke sh:hasShape, which effectively validates a node in a graph against a shape in a schema. There are of course an unenumerable number of ways that one may wish to connect nodes to shapes, user interface, posts to LD containers, routine sweeps of data stores, etc. So if one were to invoke a validation and the schema included some conflicting sh:scopeNode or sh:scopeProperty assertions, which would win?
>>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 16:23:03 UTC