Could you clarify why you believe that a test case relying on EXISTS (with its currently undecided status in SPARQL) would make sense? I believe the most prudent action would be to explicitly *not* have any tests that use EXISTS in our test suite. We could add such a thing once the SPARQL spec has been updated with an erratum. Holger On 9/02/2017 10:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Here is a good test case for SPARQL-SHACL. > > Shapes Graph: > > @prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> . > @prefix ex: <http://example.org/rock/> . > > ex:s1 sh:targetClass ex:Person ; > sh:sparql [ sh:select """ SELECT $this WHERE { > FILTER NOT EXISTS { $this > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> > <http://example.org/rock/Rock> . } } """ ] . > > Data Graph: > > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . > @prefix ex: <http://example.org/rock/> . > > _:john rdf:type ex:Person . > ex:pet rdf:type ex:Rock . > > Results: > > Given a definition for pre-binding that matches intuitions in this case > (which is, of course, not assured) the data graph conforms to the shapes > graph. > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Nuance Communications >Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 01:26:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:48 UTC