- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:18:11 -0400
- To: James Hudson <jameshudson3010@gmail.com>
- Cc: Public Shacl W3C <public-shacl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <C8916B56-01E1-405C-B6F2-4BD55563D710@topquadrant.com>
No, I meant sequence path without any zero or more or one or more. Simply rdf:type/rdf:type as opposed to rdf:type+/rdf:type which doesn’t make much sense.
sh:path (rdf:type rdf:type);
See https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#property-paths <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#property-paths>
> On Apr 21, 2020, at 12:56 PM, James Hudson <jameshudson3010@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Irene,
>
> Thank you for your quickly reply.
>
> If I try:
>
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>> .
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>> .
> @prefix sch: <http://schema.org/ <http://schema.org/>> .
> @prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl# <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#>> .
> @prefix ex: <http://example.org/ <http://example.org/>> .
>
> ex:ClassOrProperty
> a sh:PropertyShape ;
> sh:target [
> a sh:SPARQLTarget ;
> sh:select """
> SELECT ?this
> WHERE {
> ?this ?p ?o .
> }
> """ ;
> ] ;
>
>
> sh:path ( [sh:zeroOrMorePath rdf:type] rdf:type ) ;
> sh:in ( rdfs:Class rdf:Property ) ;
> .
>
> which is what I think you mean by "rdf:type/rdf:type as the path", I still get the following unexpected validation error:
>
> Constraint Violation in InConstraintComponent (http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#InConstraintComponent <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#InConstraintComponent>):
> Severity: sh:Violation
> Source Shape: ex:ClassOrProperty
> Focus Node: hr:Longer
> Value Node: hr:Employee
> Result Path: ( [ sh:zeroOrMorePath rdf:type ] rdf:type )
>
> By unexpected, I mean I do not want it to be considered a validation error because the rdf:type property path terminates at rdfs:Class.
>
> When you say "zero or more paths will deliver values hr:Long, hr:Employee, rdfs:Class," does that mean that the sh:in test will be performed on the value of hr:Long (fail), hr:Employee (fail), and rdfs:Class (pass)? Is it possible to have it validate only where the property path terminates?
>
> Regards,
> James
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:12 PM Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com <mailto:irene@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
> This looks correct.
>
> With data:
>
> hr:Long a hr:Employee.
> hr:Employee a rdfs:Class.
>
> If your focus node is hr:Long, zero or more paths will deliver values hr:Long, hr:Employee, rdfs:Class. One or more paths will deliver values hr:Employee, rdfs:Class.
>
> You could try rdf:type/rdf:type as the path. This will get the type of a resource that is used as a type and ensure that it is rdfs:CLass or rdf:Property.
>
>> On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:39 AM, James Hudson <jameshudson3010@gmail.com <mailto:jameshudson3010@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Since people here have been so helpful in the past, I thought I would ask a few more questions.
>>
>> Background to this is my SO question at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61323857/what-is-the-difference-between-these-shape-graphs-which-use-shor <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61323857/what-is-the-difference-between-these-shape-graphs-which-use-shor>
>>
>> The SO question has the data graph under consideration.
>>
>> In the book Validating RDF, it says:
>>
>> Node shapes declare constraints directly on a node. Property shapes declare constraints on the values associated with a node through a path.
>>
>> Based on this, I believe I want to use a Property Shape because I want to define a constraint on the value of the rdf:type path on a focus node. Is this correct?
>>
>> If I try the property shape:
>>
>> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>> .
>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>> .
>> @prefix sch: <http://schema.org/ <http://schema.org/>> .
>> @prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl# <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#>> .
>> @prefix ex: <http://example.org/ <http://example.org/>> .
>>
>> ex:ClassOrProperty
>> a sh:PropertyShape ;
>> sh:target [
>> a sh:SPARQLTarget ;
>> sh:select """
>> SELECT ?this
>> WHERE {
>> ?this ?p ?o .
>> }
>> """ ;
>> ] ;
>>
>>
>> sh:path [sh:zeroOrMorePath rdf:type] ;
>> sh:in ( rdfs:Class rdf:Property ) ;
>> .
>>
>> I get the unexpected validation error:
>> (J)
>> Constraint Violation in InConstraintComponent (http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#InConstraintComponent <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#InConstraintComponent>):
>> Severity: sh:Violation
>> Source Shape: ex:ClassOrProperty
>> Focus Node: hr:Longer
>> Value Node: hr:Employee
>> Result Path: [ sh:zeroOrMorePath rdf:type ]
>>
>> The way I thought [sh:zeroOrMorePath rdf:type] ; would work is that it would consider the node hr:Longer and follow the rdf:type path through hr:Employee to where it terminates at rdfs:Class and then validate. However, it seems to stop one step away, sees that hr:Employee is not a rdfs:Class or rdf:Property and then generates a validation error.
>>
>> I get another unexpected validation error:
>> (K)
>> Constraint Violation in InConstraintComponent (http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#InConstraintComponent <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#InConstraintComponent>):
>> Severity: sh:Violation
>> Source Shape: ex:ClassOrProperty
>> Focus Node: hr:Employee
>> Value Node: hr:Employee
>> Result Path: [ sh:zeroOrMorePath rdf:type ]
>>
>> I was thinking that the zero in sh:zeroOrMorePath would see hr:Employee a rdfs:Class ; and validate. Is it the case that the zero in sh:zeroOrMorePath causes a validation engine to compare a node against itself without following or looking for the path?
>>
>> I did try using sh:oneOrMorePath, but I received the validation error (J) again, but (K) did not show up. Is the reason why (K) did not show up because it was forced to see hr:Employee a rdfs:Class ; because of the one in sh:oneOrMorePath and could validate it?
>>
>> Perhaps a validation engine validates every node along the path and not just where the path terminates? If this is the case, is it possible to validate where the path terminates only?
>>
>> Needless to say, I am rather confused.
>>
>> Can anyone clear this up?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2020 17:18:29 UTC