- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:25:22 +1000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
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