W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

Re: Quick Comments on https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:37:55 +1000
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <27d2734e-2168-ffe1-b6a6-02ae53e3d8b8@topquadrant.com>
Ok, I am pasting the current snapshot of that page into this email. HTH


      pre-binding[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=2>]

SPARQL does not evaluate variables that occur in basic graph patterns. 
This means that the definition of pre-binding has unusual behaviour. For 
example, the normative SPARQL definition of sh:class will return 
validation results for every pair of nodes in the graph such that there 
is an rdf:type/rdfs:subClass* path from the first to the second.

This problem affects many parts of the definition of SHACL. It means 
that the normative definition of many SHACL constructs is counter to 
intuitions. This problem is not ameliorated by the caution box in 
Appendix B.

  * Comment (HK): WG is waiting for input from the SPARQL EXISTS CG on
    this topic.


      syntax of SPARQL variables[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=3>]

SPARQL treats $ and ? as equivalent so $PATH and ?PATH both refer to the 
PATH variable. SHACL uses $ as a special marker and includes $ and ? as 
part of the variable.

Would ?PATH be substituted as $PATH is? If a SPARQL query for a SHACL 
constraint only used ?this would the variable this be pre-bound?

  * Comment (HK): I have tried to address this here
    (https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/4871ced946aa03cd2bd91d808d8e4a1b33e64ef6)
    so that the text no longer refers to things like $PATH as a
    variable, but instead to PATH.


      pre-binding optional?[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=4>]

"SPARQL variables using the $ marker represent external values that must 
be pre-bound or substituted in the SPARQL query before execution." "When 
SPARQL constraints are executed, the validation engine should pre-bind 
values for these variables." Are some $-marked variables not necessarily 
pre-bound, counter to the earlier requirement?

  * Comment (HK): The "should" was indeed a mistake, it's not optional.
    Removed:https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/ecdad602d5d4bfeb3a2a876298349fe69d0c4e60


      $PATH vs other $-prefixed variables[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=5>]

The variable PATH is treated specially in SHACL. However, the general 
description of $ does not specially call out PATH: "SPARQL variables 
using the $ marker represent external values that must be pre-bound or 
substituted in the SPARQL query before execution."

  * Comment (HK): Addressed here, pointing out the special treatment of
    PATH:https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/a5db1204433b19a0da099a8a89af76186d865f6c


      $value[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=6>]

$value is used in many ASK queries. However the definition of ASK 
validators does not appear to pre-bind value.

  * Comment (HK): 4.1 states "These queries are interpreted against each
    value node, bound to the variable value." A similar statement exists
    in section 6.4.2. So I am not sure what is missing here.


      aggregation[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=7>]

The prohibition "Furthermore, any query that uses the variable $this in 
an aggregation is invalid." is vague. It appears to disallow the use of 
$this in any part of the SPARQL 1.1 aggregation machinery, as the 
pointer in the sentence is to Section 11 of the SPARQL specification. 
This would rule out all of the examples of aggregation in the SHACL 
document.

  * Comment (HK): I have tried to clarify that this is only about the
    use of ?this in expressions. This is allowing its use in GROUP BY,
    in case you were referring to this. Apart from that I don't see uses
    of ?this in aggregations in the SHACL
    document.https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/0c6939ba95ffd6c7fee2285a3638c144a97f8528


      ASK validators syntax[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=8>]

The syntax for ASK queries in SPARQL 1.1 is

  "ASK" DatasetClause* WhereClause SolutionModifier

The syntax for WhereClause is

  'WHERE'? GroupGraphPattern

The syntax for EXISTS constructs SPARQL 1.1 is

  'EXISTS' GroupGraphPattern

Stripping the ASK from the beginning of an ASK query does not generally 
end up with a GroupGraphPattern that can be used as the argument for EXISTS.

  * Comment (HK): Thanks for pointing out this detail. I have tried to
    address this
    with:https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/d820e0bac287944fb13edc86040995927f02e20d

It appears that the values of sh:ask are never used as ASK queries by 
SHACL processors. Why then are these of the form of ASK queries?

  * Comment (HK): While in theory we could have stated
    GroupGraphPattern, I think ASK is more intuitive to explain and
    allows stand-alone execution with copy and paste. Furthermore they
    align with the use of functions, which can also have ASK queries as
    their bodies.


      different levels of SHACL implementation[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=9>]

There are several different kinds of SHACL implementations that are 
hinted at in the document.

"SHACL implementations may, but are not required to, support entailment 
regimes." "Access to the shapes graph is not a requirement for 
supporting the SHACL Core language." "This sections [sic] defines the 
built-in SHACL constraint components that MUST be supported by all SHACL 
validation engines." "Not all SHACL validation engines need to support 
this variable." "The same support policies as for $shapesGraph apply for 
this variable." "SPARQL engines with full SHACL support can install a 
new SPARQL function based on the SPARQL 1.1 Extensible Value Testing 
mechanism." "SHACL validation engines are not required to support any 
entailment regimes." "SHACL implementations with full support of the 
SHACL SPARQL extension mechanism must implement a function sh:hasShape, 
...." "A SHACL validation engine MUST implement all constructs in the 
Core of SHACL (Sections 2, 3, 4). A SHACL engine MAY not implement the 
other parts of SHACL." "Implementations that cover only the the SHACL 
Core features are not required to implement these mechanisms or the 
sh:hasShape function." "SHACL validation engines MAY pre-bind the 
variable $shapesGraph to provide access to the shapes graph." "A SHACL 
validation engine MAY use such suggestions to determine which shapes 
graph to use for validating a data graph." "A SHACL validation engine 
MAY take this information into account to determine which shapes graph 
to use for validating a data graph that uses that ontology or vocabulary."

There needs to be a section that explicitly defines the different levels 
of implementation.

  * Comment (HK): Not sure what to do about this. There is an almost
    infinite amount of combinations of these above, so one could define
    many dialects. But only one of them is the full SHACL. I would
    prefer all SHACL engines to support all these features but there was
    too much resistance, e.g. from those favoring a
    single-query-code-generation approach or working against SPARQL end
    points. The resulting mess is reflecting the heterogeneous nature of
    the SPARQL universe, whether we want it or not.
  * Comment (DK): What if we created a section at the end of part II
    called "Optional features of the SHACL SPARQL extension mechanism"
    (or something similar) where we list all option features
  * Comment (HK): Ok, I have added an appendix with the goal of
    enumerating all optional features. Could you double check
    this:https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/e198bc9689c95e89e8caeb8c3c787b9efa579856


      order of processing for filters[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=10>]

The discussion of how filters are processed appears to be contradictory. 
First there is: "SHACL validation engines MAY alter the order of the 
depicted steps as long as the returned validation results are correct." 
Later there is: "Filter shapes MUST be evaluated before validating the 
associated shapes or constraints."

  * Comment (HK): Yes, the first sentence is IMHO incorrect and I have
    taken it out
    (https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/3777e8e80aec9f9c1ba1bbb0dfdfce2b2acb9a12).
    The problem is that if an engine does filtering after validation, it
    may run into a failure that is otherwise not reached. I don't
    remember why we added that statement in the first place, do you
    @Dimitris?
  * Comment (DK): This was changed to address a comment from Peter on
    March 7th and resulted inthis commit
    <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/9edef4c82a7f6480d0c45e3e34656c7f93f1dfa5>


      $shapesGraph[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=11>]

The status of $shapesGraph is unclear: "SPARQL variables using the $ 
marker represent external values that must be pre-bound or substituted 
in the SPARQL query before execution." "SHACL validation engines MAY 
pre-bind the variable $shapesGraph to provide access to the shapes graph."

  * Comment (HK): The MAY is clarified in the following sentence (Access
    to the shapes graph is not a requirement etc). I believe it would be
    confusing to soften up the must in the first sentence because of
    this exception.


      circular filters[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=12>]

What happens if a shape is one of its own filters?

  * Comment (HK): The same as with other recursive scenarios - it's
    undefined.


      EXISTS and blank nodes[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=13>]

The definition of ASK binds the value variable and then uses it inside 
an EXISTS. The definition of SPARQL provides a counter-intuitive result 
if this variable is bound to a blank node, resulting in, for example, a 
sh:class constraint with class ex:C returning no violation for _:d in 
any data graph containing the triple

  ex:c rdf:type ex:C .

  * Comment (HK): We are awaiting input from the SPARQL Maintenance
    (EXISTS) community group.


      union operations on data graphs and shapes graphs[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=14>]

It is unclear just what the data graph and the shapes graph are. There 
is wording that both of these cannot be changed. However, there is also 
wording that various kinds of union operations are to be performed on 
shapes and data graphs.

  * Comment (HK): The only place I could find "union" was about handling
    of owl:imports, which states that the result of this union is used
    as shapes graph. This looks OK to me. Could you clarify what you mean?
  * Comment (DK): I tried to make the wording clearer
    here:https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/b6fd2db5719cc9c9bdec464acdd2aefc8d0b5b68


      $targetNode[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=15>]

It is unclear what is meant by: "The variable $targetNode is assumed to 
be pre-bound to the given value of sh:targetNode." Is this something 
that SHACL implementations have to do? There are several occurences of 
this kind of wording.

  * Comment (HK): I don't see anything wrong here. "is assumed to" is
    IMHO OK because this section is merely describing the formal
    semantics without prescribing an implementation. Implementations
    will (almost certainly) not use a SPARQL query.


      MAY[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=16>]

MAY is used in 1.5 but defined in 1.6

  * Comment (HK): Ok, moved higher
    uphttps://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bda4e2c4781494ac0e26eb132c7e7dae15932739


      MAY 2[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=17>]

"A SHACL engine MAY not implement the other parts of SHACL." reads as if 
no SHACL engine is allowed to implement any non-core part of SHACL.

  * Comment (HK):
    Seehttps://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/2ba049e6e39096bf47355b03d1de02c2e0e84f59


      Graphs SHOULD[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=18>]

"The data graph SHOULD include all the ontology axioms related to the 
data and especially all the rdfs:subClassOf triples in order for SHACL 
to correctly identify class targets and validate Core SHACL 
constraints." Data graphs are just graphs. How thus can SHOULD be 
applied to them?

  * Comment (HK): I have replaced the SHOULD with "is expected
    to":https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/fd3fbeac7826f9df87111af878e65e34a502331c


      Suggestions[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=19>]

"A SHACL validation engine MAY use such suggestions to determine which 
shapes graph to use for validating a data graph." Can this be done even 
when an explicit shapes graph is provided to the engine?

  * Comment (HK): Attempted to clarify
    athttps://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/601631a5f4b965fa79f7b44a5a348702326ef315


      Different shapes graph[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=20>]

"The same mechanism applies for ontologies or vocabularies included in 
the shapes graph. The ontology or the vocabulary IRI can point to one or 
more shapes graphs with the predicate sh:shapesGraph. A SHACL validation 
engine MAY take this information into account to determine which shapes 
graph to use for validating a data graph that uses that ontology or 
vocabulary." If there already is a shapes graph in play, why is there 
any need for a different shapes graph to be used?

  * Comment (HK): I have changed the prose to clarify that
    sh:shapesGraph only points at graphs, not shape
    graphs:https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/c88df2cf50cbc5f31feaabf610a0143d3ebcf0fb
  * Comment (DK):I removed
    <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/53e0800c8056598ea3392ee108867aee12010dd7>the
    "in the shapes graph" here. This was meant as a general property for
    ontology design not only when it is used in one of the shapes/data graph


      Deep copy[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=21>]

"a deep copy of sh:path as its sh:path" What is "deep copy" in this context?

  * Comment (HK): I have attempted to clarify this
    here:https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/d3f8f858f95b010d1f2a0e4681da203bcbfbc217
  * Comment (kc): Unless "deep copy" has some pre-defined meaning that I
    am unaware of, I would suggest dropping it and saying: The value
    of|sh:path|of each validation result must copy all triples that are
    required by the <a href="#path-syntax">SHACL well-formed path syntax
    rules</a>from the <a>shapes graph</a> into the graph containing the
    validation results.
  * Comment (HK): The first google match of "deep copy" is pretty close
    to what I wanted to express, so I believe the term should be
    familiar to many people and may be helpful for implementers. Also I
    had surrounded the term with "...". Anyway, I have no strong opinion
    and let others decide.


      Filter role[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=22>]

"A filter is a shape in a shapes graph that can be used to limit the 
nodes that are validated against a given constraint or shape." Are there 
some filters that cannot be used in this way? Which ones?

  * Comment (HK): I don't understand this comment. The current statement
    does not exclude any filters from being used this way.
  * Comment (DK):This commit
    <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/892eb1e7b3e49786244a462766b426ebd136bd7a>should
    fix this issue.


      Incomplete table[edit
      <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Comments&action=edit&section=23>]

"The following table enumerates variables that have special meaning in 
SPARQL constraints. When SPARQL constraints are executed, the validation 
engine should pre-bind values for these variables." However, many other 
variables also need to be pre-bound, such as the variables corresponding 
to parameters.

  * Comment (HK): First, the statement above does not exclude other
    variables from being pre-bound. It doesn't claim that the table
    contains "all" variables. Second, this is in a chapter about SPARQL
    Constraints, where parameters have no meaning. So I don't think
    anything is wrong here.
  * Comment (DK): I thinkthis commit
    <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/4d6a7d65ab5c45ddcd20fe666dac0ce1b22e1824>helps
    more with this issue. I am not sure if we should move that table in
    the prebinding section since it affectd prebinding as a whole, not
    only SPARQL constraints



On 23/09/2016 9:35, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> That's a pointer to a mutable page, which is not suitable as a record of a
> response to my comments.  Please arrange for a non-mutable record.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
>
> On 09/22/2016 04:29 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> many thanks for your input. We have tried to address your issues as outlined
>> here:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Public_Comments#Peter.27s_Email_2016-08-16
>>
>>
>> With a couple of items we were not sure what to do, and would appreciate
>> clarification.
>>
>> The major unhandled issue relates to the SPARQL EXISTS / pre-binding topic, on
>> which we hope to receive some input from the corresponding CG that you are
>> also member of.
>>
>> Regards
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 16/08/2016 8:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> Here are a few of the problems with the current public working draft I found
>>> during a quick scan of it.
>>>
>>> * pre-binding
>>>
>>> SPARQL does not evaluate variables that occur in basic graph patterns.  This
>>> means that the definition of pre-binding has unusual behaviour.  For
>>> example, the normative SPARQL definition of sh:class will return validation
>>> results for every pair of nodes in the graph such that there is an
>>> rdf:type/rdfs:subClass* path from the first to the second.
>>>
>>> This problem affects many parts of the definition of SHACL.  It means that
>>> the normative definition of many SHACL constructs is counter to intuitions.
>>> This problem is not ameliorated by the caution box in Appendix B.
>>>
>>> * syntax of SPARQL variables
>>>
>>> SPARQL treats $ and ? as equivalent so $PATH and ?PATH both refer to the
>>> PATH variable.  SHACL uses $ as a special marker and includes $ and ? as
>>> part of the variable.
>>>
>>> Would ?PATH be substituted as $PATH is?  If a SPARQL query for a SHACL
>>> constraint only used ?this would the variable this be pre-bound?
>>>
>>> * pre-binding optional?
>>>
>>> "SPARQL variables using the $ marker represent external values that must be
>>> pre-bound or substituted in the SPARQL query before execution."
>>> "When SPARQL constraints are executed, the validation engine should pre-bind
>>> values for these variables."
>>> Are some $-marked variables not necessarily pre-bound, counter to the
>>> earlier requirement?
>>>
>>> * $PATH vs other $-prefixed variables
>>>
>>> The variable PATH is treated specially in SHACL.  However, the general
>>> description of $ does not specially call out PATH:
>>> "SPARQL variables using the $ marker represent external values that must be
>>> pre-bound or substituted in the SPARQL query before execution."
>>>
>>> * $value
>>>
>>> $value is used in many ASK queries.  However the definition of ASK
>>> validators does not appear to pre-bind value.
>>>
>>> * aggregation
>>>
>>> The prohibition "Furthermore, any query that uses the variable $this in an
>>> aggregation is invalid." is vague.  It appears to disallow the use of $this
>>> in any part of the SPARQL 1.1 aggregation machinery, as the pointer in the
>>> sentence is to Section 11 of the SPARQL specification.  This would rule out
>>> all of the examples of aggregation in the SHACL document.
>>>
>>> * ASK validators syntax
>>>
>>> The syntax for ASK queries in SPARQL 1.1 is
>>>     "ASK" DatasetClause* WhereClause SolutionModifier
>>> The syntax for WhereClause is
>>>     'WHERE'? GroupGraphPattern
>>> The syntax for EXISTS constructs SPARQL 1.1 is
>>>     'EXISTS' GroupGraphPattern
>>> Stripping the ASK from the beginning of an ASK query does not generally end
>>> up with a GroupGraphPattern that can be used as the argument for EXISTS.
>>>
>>> It appears that the values of sh:ask are never used as ASK queries by SHACL
>>> processors.  Why then are these of the form of ASK queries?
>>>
>>> * different levels of SHACL implementation
>>>
>>> There are several different kinds of SHACL implementations that are hinted
>>> at in the document.
>>>
>>> "SHACL implementations may, but are not required to, support entailment
>>> regimes."
>>> "Access to the shapes graph is not a requirement for supporting the SHACL
>>> Core language."
>>> "This sections [sic] defines the built-in SHACL constraint components that
>>> MUST be supported by all SHACL validation engines."
>>> "Not all SHACL validation engines need to support this variable."
>>> "The same support policies as for $shapesGraph apply for this variable."
>>> "SPARQL engines with full SHACL support can install a new SPARQL function
>>> based on the SPARQL 1.1 Extensible Value Testing mechanism."
>>> "SHACL validation engines are not required to support any entailment regimes."
>>> "SHACL implementations with full support of the SHACL SPARQL extension
>>> mechanism must implement a function sh:hasShape, ...."
>>> "A SHACL validation engine MUST implement all constructs in the Core of SHACL
>>> (Sections 2, 3, 4). A SHACL engine MAY not implement the other parts of
>>> SHACL."
>>> "Implementations that cover only the the SHACL Core features are not
>>> required to implement these mechanisms or the sh:hasShape function."
>>> "SHACL validation engines MAY pre-bind the variable $shapesGraph to provide
>>> access to the shapes graph."
>>> "A SHACL validation engine MAY use such suggestions to determine which shapes
>>> graph to use for validating a data graph."
>>> "A SHACL validation engine MAY take this information into account to
>>> determine which shapes graph to use for validating a data graph that uses
>>> that ontology or vocabulary."
>>>      
>>> There needs to be a section that explicitly defines the different levels of
>>> implementation.
>>>
>>> * order of processing for filters
>>>
>>> The discussion of how filters are processed appears to be contradictory.
>>> First there is:
>>> "SHACL validation engines MAY alter the order of the depicted steps as long
>>> as the returned validation results are correct."
>>> Later there is:
>>> "Filter shapes MUST be evaluated before validating the associated shapes or
>>> constraints."
>>>
>>> * $shapesGraph
>>>
>>> The status of $shapesGraph is unclear:
>>> "SPARQL variables using the $ marker represent external values that must be
>>> pre-bound or substituted in the SPARQL query before execution."
>>> "SHACL validation engines MAY pre-bind the variable $shapesGraph to provide
>>> access to the shapes graph."
>>>
>>> * circular filters
>>>
>>> What happens if a shape is one of its own filters?
>>>
>>> * EXISTS and blank nodes
>>>
>>> The definition of ASK binds the value variable and then uses it inside an
>>> EXISTS.  The definition of SPARQL provides a counter-intuitive result if
>>> this variable is bound to a blank node, resulting in, for example, a
>>> sh:class constraint with class ex:C returning no violation for _:d in any
>>> data graph containing the triple
>>>     ex:c rdf:type ex:C .
>>>
>>> * union operations on data graphs and shapes graphs
>>>
>>> It is unclear just what the data graph and the shapes graph are.  There is
>>> wording that both of these cannot be changed.  However, there is also
>>> wording that various kinds of union operations are to be performed on shapes
>>> and data graphs.
>>>
>>>
>>> * It is unclear what is meant by:  "The variable $targetNode is assumed to
>>>     be pre-bound to the given value of sh:targetNode."  Is this something that
>>>     SHACL implementations have to do?  There are several occurences of this
>>>     kind of wording.
>>>
>>> * MAY is used in 1.5 but defined in 1.6
>>>
>>> * "A SHACL engine MAY not implement the other parts of SHACL." reads as if
>>>     no SHACL engine is allowed to implement any non-core part of SHACL.
>>>
>>> * "The data graph SHOULD include all the ontology axioms related to the data
>>>     and especially all the rdfs:subClassOf triples in order for SHACL to
>>>     correctly identify class targets and validate Core SHACL constraints."
>>>     Data graphs are just graphs.  How thus can SHOULD be applied to them?
>>>
>>> * "A SHACL validation engine MAY use such suggestions to determine which
>>>     shapes graph to use for validating a data graph."  Can this be done even
>>>     when an explicit shapes graph is provided to the engine?
>>>
>>> * "The same mechanism applies for ontologies or vocabularies included in the
>>>     shapes graph. The ontology or the vocabulary IRI can point to one or more
>>>     shapes graphs with the predicate sh:shapesGraph. A SHACL validation engine
>>>     MAY take this information into account to determine which shapes graph to
>>>     use for validating a data graph that uses that ontology or vocabulary."
>>>     If there already is a shapes graph in play, why is there any need for a
>>>     different shapes graph to be used?
>>>
>>> * "a deep copy of sh:path as its sh:path"  What is "deep copy" in this
>>>     context?
>>>
>>> * "A filter is a shape in a shapes graph that can be used to limit the nodes
>>>     that are validated against a given constraint or shape."   Are there some
>>>     filters that cannot be used in this way?  Which ones?
>>>
>>> * "The following table enumerates variables that have special meaning in
>>>     SPARQL constraints. When SPARQL constraints are executed, the validation
>>>     engine should pre-bind values for these variables."  However, many other
>>>     variables also need to be pre-bound, such as the variables corresponding
>>>     to parameters.
>>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2016 23:38:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC