Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Holger Knublauch <>

> I was asked to prepare a possible resolution to close ISSUE-131.
> This ticket was raised by Peter in March and a lot of changes were made in
> the meantime. I believe his original questions have either been addressed
> directly or have become redundant due to other changes:
> - the function no longer uses the team "type" anywhere (we now use Node
> kind in the parameters table)
> - the handling of recursion is left unspecified, as we had agreed to do in
> another resolution. However, we do state that a SPARQL error may be
> returned if infinite recursion is encountered.
> - there is (and never was) a need to pass bindings through sh:hasShape
> function
> - the third argument has been (recently) removed, to avoid the question of
> whether the shapes graph can be accessed via a URI in a dataset or not.

This is actually not correct, sh:hasShape takes 2 arguments, a node from
the data graph (focus node) and a node from the shapes graph (shape) and
checks if the focus node validates against the shape.
It is obvious that access to the shapes graph is required to perform the
Before we had an extra argument to specify externally the shapes graph,
even if that is now gone it is still needed and provided implicitely by the

Since access to the shapes graph is optional my proposal is to make
sh:hasShape optional as well

> - the overall terminology has been cleaned up, using defined terms such as
> "failure" with hyperlinks
> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-131 as addressed, see Holger's email (this email).
> Holger

Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Research Group: AKSW/KILT

Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 05:06:48 UTC