ISSUE-93: SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements

engine / language

SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL Spec

Raised by:

Harold Solbrig

Opened on:

2015-09-24

Description:

Portions of the spec describes what it means to be a compliant SHACL "engine". As an example, Section 3 states "Compliant SHACL engines MUST support all these constraints". Other compliance points, however, appear to contain recommendations about what would constitute a good SHACL schema. As an example, section 3.1 on Property constraints states that a sh:property reference SHOULD have an rdf:type triple. From the SHACL engine perspective, there is nothing we can do with this assertion, because SHOULD is only a recommendation, so an engine will need to work correctly whether or not the rdf:type is actually present.

Similarly, the document recommends the use of rdfs:comments and rdfs:labels, but there doesn't appear to be any assertions about how this would change the behavior of compliant SHACL engines.

I would propose that we create a new document style with a different format that will allow us to include all of these these requirements and suggestions but would differentiate SHACL requirements from "good coding style" recommendations.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. ISSUE-93 and ISSUE-94 (attn: Harold) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-10-07)
2. Re: Please review the SHACL draft (was Re: Editing progress) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-08-31)
3. Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-10-29)
4. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-10-16)
5. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-10-14)
6. Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-10-08)
7. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-10-08)
8. Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 8 October 2015 (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-10-08)
9. Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-10-08)
10. Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-09-29)
11. Re: shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-09-29)
12. shapes-ISSUE-93 (hsolbrig): SHACL engine vs. SHACL instance requirements [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-09-24)

Related notes:

Display change log