Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close

On 13/10/2016 15:05, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Holger Knublauch 
> <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
>     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.

You may have misread my statement above. All I said is that we avoid the 
question of whether the shapes graph is reachable via a URI or not. This 
is orthogonal to the question of whether (during the execution of 
sh:hasShape) access to the shapes graph is needed or not. In fact, the 
situation with regards to ?shapesGraph as a variable is not affected by 
any of this, and it remains optional. Engines can still decide to 
implement sh:hasShape without requiring access to the shapes graph.

> It is obvious that access to the shapes graph is required to perform 
> the validation.
> 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 engine.
>
> Since access to the shapes graph is optional my proposal is to make 
> sh:hasShape optional as well

See above, I believe you are mixing two unrelated topics.

Holger


>     - 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
> 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
>