Re: on access to the shapes graph in SHACL

But how is that sufficient to be able to implement sh:hasShape?

It still appears to me that implementing sh:hasShape requires access to the
shapes graph inside the SPARQL queries that implement SHACL constraint components.

peter


On 09/25/2016 11:57 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> The idea is that the SHACL engine would already have the "pointer" to the
> shapes graph, and will reuse that to pre-bind the $shapesGraph variable if it
> needs to. In other words, the parameter would be implicit.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 26/09/2016 16:49, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I don't think that this follows unless sh:hasShape can be fully implemented
>> when there is no access to the shapes graph.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> On 09/25/2016 11:38 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> I have attached this as a comment to ISSUE-131, which is still open. I believe
>>> we can delete the shapesGraph argument from sh:hasShape and treat it as
>>> implicitly known to the engine. This should then resolve your concern here.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24/09/2016 3:12, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> Following up one of the recent responses to my comments on Shapes Constraint
>>>> Language (SHACL) lead me to look at how access to the shapes graph works in
>>>> Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL), W3C Editor's Draft 22 September 2016.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The initial discussion of access to the shapes graph is in Section 1.6:
>>>>
>>>> "SHACL Full processors MAY pre-bind the variable shapesGraph to provide
>>>> access to the shapes graph. Access to the shapes graph is not a requirement
>>>> for supporting the SHACL Core language. The variable shapesGraph can also be
>>>> used in user-defined SPARQL constraints and SPARQL-based constraint
>>>> components. However, such constraints may not be interoperable across
>>>> different SHACL Full processors or not applicable to remote RDF datasets."
>>>>
>>>> Given the first "MAY" here, it appears that access to the shapes graph is
>>>> neither a requirement for supporting the SHACL Full language.  This puts
>>>> access to the shapes graph in a kind of SHACL Fuller.
>>>>
>>>> The next discusion is in Section 5.3:
>>>>
>>>> "$shapesGraph     Can be used to query the shapes graph as in GRAPH
>>>> $shapesGraph { ... }. If the shapes graph is a named graph in the same
>>>> dataset as the data graph then it is the IRI of the shapes graph in the
>>>> dataset. Not all SHACL Full processors need to support this
>>>> variable. Processors that do not support $shapesGraph MUST report a failure
>>>> if they encounter a query that references this variable. Use of GRAPH
>>>> $shapesGraph { ... } should be handled with extreme caution. It may result
>>>> in constraints that are not interoperable across different SHACL Full
>>>> processors and that may not run on remote RDF datasets."
>>>>
>>>> Again, access to the shapes graph is in SHACL Fuller.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The final discussion is in Appendx A:
>>>>
>>>> "SHACL Full processors must implement the function sh:hasShape, which takes
>>>> the following parameters:
>>>> Parameter     Value Type     Summary
>>>> focusNode     rdfs:Resource     The focus node to validate.
>>>> shape         rdfs:Resource     The shape to validate the focus node against.
>>>> shapesGraph     rdfs:Resource     The IRI of the current shapes graph."
>>>> An example call of this function is
>>>>     BIND (sh:hasShape(ex:JohnDoe, ex:PersonShape, $shapesGraph) AS ?hasShape)
>>>> None of the parameters can be unbound."
>>>>
>>>> But now it appears that access to the shapes graph is a required part of
>>>> SHACL Full processing, contradicting to the previous discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>> Nuance Communications
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Received on Monday, 26 September 2016 17:53:55 UTC