Re: on sh:resultPath

I have raised ISSUE-217 for this.

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/217

Holger



On 9/12/2016 11:29, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ISSUE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> The requirements for values of sh:resultPath in validation results are
> impossible to achieve, poorly defined, contradictory, and problematic for
> applications that consume validation reports..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ISSUE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> 3.4.2.2 Path (sh:resultPath)
> Validation results may have a value for the property sh:resultPath pointing
> at a well-formed property path starting with the given sh:focusNode. For
> results produced by a property constraint, this path is always identical to
> either the sh:predicate or sh:path of the constraint.
>
>
> A property path is a "possible route in a graph between two graph nodes".
> There is no definition of route to be found in the document.  It is thus not
> possible to point to a property path, well-formed or not.
>
> The values of sh:predicate and sh:path in shapes graphs are SHACL property
> paths.  As objects of triples in a graph these values are nodes in the
> graph, and certainly not routes of any kind.
>
> Identity of RDF terms is not defined in RDF, so it is not completely clear
> what the second sentence in the description above means.  The only
> reasonable interpretation appears to be that value of sh:resultPath is the
> same as the object of the sh:predicate or sh:path triple, which implies that
> validation results will contain nodes taken from shapes graphs.  This is
> contradictory as nodes are not paths.
>
> This is also problematic for applications that consume validation reports as
> it requires the ability to take a blank node from one graph and find the
> same blank node in another graph, which is not always possible in RDF.
>
>
> This is yet another case of malformed descriptions in the document.  The
> document needs to be changed to provide a well-formed description for the
> value of sh:resultPath in validation results.  A complete examination of the
> document by a competent member of the working group is needed to find and
> eliminate other similar problems in the document.
>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 9 December 2016 04:22:28 UTC