W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Question on Handling of Ill-formed Shapes Graphs

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:54:06 -0800
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <c4940e8d-aa68-d16b-46f4-c64ace74377b@gmail.com>
Please provide a pointer to this discussion and any relevant resolutions.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 02/16/2017 04:01 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/02/2017 9:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Some of the syntax requirements for constructs in SHACL-SPARQL hinge on
>> whether a string is a syntactically correct SPARQL SELECT or ASK query and are
>> thus very complex.  There is no distinction in SHACL between these syntax
>> requirements and the syntax requirements for constructs in SHACL Core so a
>> SHACL Core processor would need to implement a SPARQL syntax checker.
>>
>> However, I don't see any good reason why a SPARQL Core processor needs to
>> consider the syntactic validity of any SHACL-SPARQL constructs at all. A SHACL
>> Core processor, by design, doesn't do anything with these construct so there
>> is no benefit for a SHACL Core processor to do this checking.
>>
>> So all that a SHACL Core processor really should be doing as far as syntax
>> testing is concerned is checking the SHACL Core constructs for syntactic
>> validity.  This appears to be fairly easy - the hardest part is probably
>> checking for valid SHACL property paths.  But even if checking the syntactic
>> validity of a SHACL property path is not so easy, a SHACL Core processor is
>> going to have to do much of the checking for syntactic validity when it uses
>> the list.
>>
>> It thus seems to me that SHACL Core processors should be required to check for
>> syntactic validity of SHACL Core constructs and should completely ignore
>> SHACL-SPARQL constructs.
> 
> The WG had already discussed this topic at length and come to the conclusion
> outlined in my email, for the reasons outlined in my email.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Nuance Communications
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/16/2017 01:54 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Hi Lars,
>>>
>>> there are two major reasons for the current wording, basically due to the
>>> complexity of the many syntax rules:
>>>
>>> 1) If we were to make it a MUST then each SHACL implementation would have to
>>> implement all the syntax rules, and we as the WG would need to define test
>>> cases for all kinds of invalid structures. The SHOULD lowers the barrier of
>>> entry and the formal process issues significantly.
>>>
>>> 2) It would require validation (for well-formedness) of the shapes graph and
>>> this is a very expensive operation. In many scenarios such as interactive data
>>> entry tools, the shapes graph is identical to the data graph (or at least is
>>> part of the imports closure). If you make an edit, then the shapes may become
>>> invalid. This means that a validator would have to perform checking of the
>>> shapes before each validation, and this is prohibitively expensive in cases
>>> like form validation in real time, for each instance.
>>>
>>> Having said this, many syntax rules can be expressed in SHACL itself. The
>>> expectation of the WG is that a meta-schema for SHACL will emerge (e.g. as an
>>> open source project) outside of the W3C process. Not everything needs to be
>>> done by the WG or the spec.
>>>
>>> Hope this clarifies it.
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/02/2017 19:36, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> Section 3.4.2 [1] states that if a shapes graph is ill-formed, the SHACL
>>>> processor SHOULD produce a failure. Why is that a SHOULD and not a MUST? Or
>>>> put differently: In which cases would it be acceptable for a processor not
>>>> to produce a failure when processing an ill-formed shapes graph?
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ill-formed-shape-graphs
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Lars
>>>>
>>>> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
>>>
> 
Received on Friday, 17 February 2017 00:54:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:48 UTC