Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close

We are down to 14 open issues right now, and I am keen on making further 
progress. My take is the sooner we have the formal list of open issues 
down, the earlier we can focus on the informal issues raised from the 

ISSUE-140 was last discussed

but I have to confess I did not quite understand what problem Eric was 
referring to. It seems that Eric was merely pointing out that validation 
can be defined independently from specific node selection (i.e. target) 
mechanisms. I of course agree with that. Could you clarify?

Ted seemed to request some more detail in the spec about how the 
validation of individual nodes is supposed to happen. We already have 
one such interface, the sh:hasShape function, which can be invoked to 
trigger the validation of a given node against a given shape. We have no 
such interface for the case in which only a node is given. But we also 
don't formally define how the validation is triggered in the general, 
whole-graph case. We could potentially add a function 
sh:validateNode(?node) that validates the given node against all shapes 
with matching targets. But then people will likely complain that we are 
adding yet another SPARQL implementation requirement. Alternatively, 
Ted, could you clarify how else we can meet your requirement?


On 23/09/2016 10:11, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I had raised 
> myself, primarily as a reminder that validation of individual nodes 
> should be mentioned in the spec. I have meanwhile added a sentence 
> which IMHO addresses this need.
> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-140 as addressed by 
> Holger

Received on Friday, 7 October 2016 01:00:16 UTC