Re: notice of non-implementation

Peter,

Your comments about validation reports (which were described in more detail in separate e-mails) were recorded and subsequently resolved as WG issues 225, 228 and 229. You were notified about these issues in response to the detailed e-mails that have described them.

We hope that the resolution of these issues addresses your concerns and you will be able to continue your implementation work. We understand, however, that you have not yet had a chance to review the changes made by the WG to address your concerns.

Regards,

Irene


> On Feb 22, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Last year I had produced two implementations of SHACL, one of a variant of
> SHACL Core and one of a variant of SHACL-SPARQL.  Both implementations used
> the strategy of converting each shape with targets into a single SPARQL
> SELECT query, evaluating this query on the data graph, and using the
> resultant solution set as top-level validation results.
> 
> I was planning on converting at least one of these implementations to the
> final version of SHACL Core.  However, I will not be doing so with the
> current definition of SHACL.  My implementation strategy does not produce
> validation results for any non-top-level constraint violations.  It thus
> does not conform to the current definition of SHACL, which requires that all
> constraint violations MUST produce validation results.
> 
> The validation reports that my implementation would create could conform to
> the rest of the current definition of SHACL, and could easily conform to
> most of the rest of the current definition of SHACL.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>

Received on Friday, 10 March 2017 16:18:58 UTC