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

Re: syntax checking for SHACL

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:23:39 +1000
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <8ccfff21-54fc-eb5f-83df-76badbe4e862@topquadrant.com>
I have raised https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/233 to 
discuss this in the WG.

Holger


On 21/02/2017 1:43, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> There needs to be a requirement that SHACL implementations provide an
> interface that signals whether the shapes graph argument to validation
> conforms to the syntactic requirements of SHACL Core, for SHACL Core
> implementations, or SHACL-SPARQL, for SHACL-SPARQL implementations.  This
> does not mean that a SHACL implementation has to do this determination every
> time performs validation, just that the SHACL implementation has to provide
> an interface that does perform complete syntax checking.
>
> For example, it is currently possible for SHACL implementations to implement
> the following shape as requiring that all SHACL instances of ex:C1 be any of
> ex:i1, ex:i2, ex:i3; or as requiring that all SHACL instances of ex:C1 be
> either ex:i1 or ex:i2; or by signalling a syntax error; or indeed by any
> behaviour whatever.
>
> se:s1 rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
>    sh:targetClass ex:C1 ;
>    sh:in _:b1 .
> _:b1 rdf:first ex:i1 ;
>    rdf:rest _:b2 ;
>    rdf:rest _:b3 .
> _:b2 rdf:first ex:i2 ;
>    rdf:rest rdf:nil .
> _:b3 rdf:first ex:i3 ;
>    rdf:rest rdf:nil .
>
>
> If there is not such a requirement interoperability will be severely
> compromised.  Users of a SHACL implementation will have no way of
> determining whether their shapes graphs can be interoperably processed by
> other SHACL implementations.
>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 01:24:16 UTC

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