- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:24:09 -0800
- To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Here are two test cases that exhibit interesting situations, along with their results according to the SHACL document as of 13 November. Data Graph D: ex:i1 rdf:type ex:c ; ex:p1 ex:i2 . 1/ property constraints and focus node constraints Shapes Graph S1: se:s1 rdf:type sh:Shape ; sh:targetClass ex:c ; sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:p2 ; sh:property se:s2 ] ; sh:shape se:s2 . se:s2 sh:predicate ex:p1 ; sh:class ex:c . Validating D against S1 produces the following validation report [ rdf:type sh:ValidationResult ; sh:severity sh:Violation ; sh:focusNode ex:i1 ; sh:sourceConstraintComponent sh:ShapeConstraintComponent ; sh:sourceShape se:s1 ] . It is actually a tiny bit unclear what makes a property constraint. There is wording that values of sh:property have sh:PropertyConstraint as expected type, but there is no actual explicit connection between nodes with expected type sh:PropertyConstraint. However, se:s2 is definitely a property constraint as it is the value of sh:property in a shape. 2/ finding shapes Shapes Graph S2: se:s1 sh:not se:s2 . se:s2 sh:targetClass ex:c ; sh:class ex:d . se:s3 sh:targetClass ex:c ; sh:nodeKind sh:BlankNode . Validating D against S2 produces the following validation report [ rdf:type sh:ValidationResult ; sh:severity sh:Violation ; sh:focusNode ex:i1 ; sh:sourceConstraintComponent sh:ClassConstraintComponent ; sh:sourceShape se:s2 ] . Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications
Received on Monday, 14 November 2016 03:24:44 UTC