ISSUE-233: Should we require support for checking of well-formed shapes graphs?
Shapes syntax checking
Should we require support for checking of well-formed shapes graphs?
- SHACL Spec
- Raised by:
- Holger Knublauch
- Opened on:
- Two people on the public mailing list
have asked whether SHACL could include capabilities to verify that a shapes graph is well-formed. This could either happen when a shapes graph is installed on the engine or at validation time.
Peter suggests that all SHACL implementations must provide such an interface that can be called on demand. Lars suggests SHACL returns some information on this in each validation report.
I believe making an implementation of complete syntax checking mandatory is unnecessarily raising the bar but I agree that engines that are not sure about well-formed graphs should signal this fact.
PROPOSAL: Add a property sh:shapesGraphWellFormed which is set to true in the sh:ValidationReport object if the engine is certain that the shapes graph is passing all syntax requirements.
This proposal would give the implementers more freedom without sacrificing interoperability. It would allow for cases where the validation happens as part of each invocation or where the shapes graph is checked when installed.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- ISSUE-233: Added section on sh:shapesGraphWellFormed (from email@example.com on 2017-02-23)
- shapes-ISSUE-233 (Shapes syntax checking): Should we require support for checking of well-formed shapes graphs? [SHACL Spec] (from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2017-02-21)
22 Feb 2017, 23:58:59
Display change log