Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

Just come across this:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/#filterShape

that didn't make the final SHACL spec.

(can be used on targets and on individual sh:property's).

Andy

On 19/05/2020 19:08, Andy Seaborne wrote:



On 19/05/2020 18:44, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the very helpful feedback.

1) I did not understand the proper use of sh:inversePath. I thought it 
was to verify that the target of the target/value of the sh:path 
property had a property equal to the value of sh:inversePath. I see 
that is just not correct.


2) I’ve found an effective solution to the problem of limiting 
validation to just the triples that should be in the graph of a 
resource such as bdr:P707 by creating a new shapes module that uses  [ 
] sh:deactivated true   on any propertyShapes that leave the graph in 
question.


I’m getting closer to being able to formulate a plausible extension to 
the shacl endpoint.


looking forward to it.

Having ?graph=..=.. makes sense.



Thank you again for your help in the midst of all the 3.15.0 work,
Chris



On May 16, 2020, at 5:45 AM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:



On 15/05/2020 00:57, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hello Andy,
I have standalone code using validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) 
where the graph is a merge of the target graph, e.g., P707, and the 
ontology graph. This works fine to validate examples like P707 
generating sh:results just for references to P705 which is not 
otherwise included in the merged graph, which is what I expect.
If the code was running in Fuseki and the graph is the dataset graph 
(equiv union graph I think) then I would like to know how far out 
from the node the validation process will reach.


That depends on the target (or, here, implicit class target) and the 
shape itself.


digression

... something that I've experimented with - analysing the shapes to 
determine execution strategy. There are some useful cases:


* the validation is only on the triple added (e.g. sh:datatype) - and 
does not need access to the database so it can be done in parallel 
outside the transaction.
* the validation needs local changes (e.g. minCount) to the entity 
(subject and all triples with that subject) - that can be used to 
reduce the number of validations done. If a entity isn't touched, no 
validation necessary.
* global - needs access to the whole database. Not much can be done 
except execute inline at the end of the transaction. Often these are 
SPARQL constraits where you can e.g. count the triples.


/digression


For example, given that the shapes include the shape:
bds:PersonShape-hasParent
 a   sh:PropertyShape ;
 sh:class    bdo:Person ;
 sh:description  "this Person may have at most two 
parents."@en ;

 sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;


??


 sh:maxCount 2 ;
 sh:path bdo:hasParent ;
.
Then I thought that the validation process would check just that:
 P705 rdf:type bdo:Person .
as well as validating the count constraint; and in the case of the 
shape:



Yes - there are two constraints: sh:class and sh:maxCount


bds:PersonShape-hasFather
 a   sh:PropertyShape ;
 sh:description  "this Person may have a father."@en ;
 sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;


Is that supposed to be:

sh:path [ sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild  ]

?

A property shape has a sh:path and that sh:path can be a inverse path.

sh:inversePath isn't used on the property shape itself.


 sh:maxCount 1 ;
 sh:node bds:MaleShape ;
 sh:path bdo:hasFather ;


and now we have two sh:paths?

(If that is you shape, the sh:inversePath is going to be ignored as 
it is out of place.)



.
will in addition check that:
 P705 bdo:gender bdr:GenderMale .
and not check any other constraints on P705, such as its students or 
kinship relations.


If P705 is reached with "sh:path bdo:hasFather"

The purpose being that when a user has “edited” an existing resource 
or “created” a new resource then we just want to validate the 
changed or new resource without having the validation process 
traverse all resources reachable from P707 via arbitrary length 
paths, which is unnecessary.
Assuming the validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) works along the 
lines I’ve sketched, then since the shacl endpoint doesn’t use this 
method it would take an extension to the endpoint or a new endpoint 
to accomplish want I’ve described.


See the code.

    validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node)

executes the shapes (any that apply) to the single focus node.  It 
does check the shapes to see which apply so the target clause (inc 
implicit targets) has to be something that would include the node.




I’m happy to raise an issue and create a PR if that makes sense.


Great.

    Andy


Thank you again very much,
Chris

On May 14, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:

On 14/05/2020 19:06, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,
I want to 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

On 19/05/2020 18:44, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the very helpful feedback.

1) I did not understand the proper use of sh:inversePath. I thought it was to 
verify that the target of the target/value of the sh:path property had a 
property equal to the value of sh:inversePath. I see that is just not correct.

2) I’ve found an effective solution to the problem of limiting validation to 
just the triples that should be in the graph of a resource such as bdr:P707 by 
creating a new shapes module that uses  [ ] sh:deactivated true   on any 
propertyShapes that leave the graph in question.

I’m getting closer to being able to formulate a plausible extension to the 
shacl endpoint.


looking forward to it.

Having ?graph=..=.. makes sense.



Thank you again for your help in the midst of all the 3.15.0 work,
Chris



On May 16, 2020, at 5:45 AM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:



On 15/05/2020 00:57, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hello Andy,
I have standalone code using validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) where the 
graph is a merge of the target graph, e.g., P707, and the ontology graph. This 
works fine to validate examples like P707 generating sh:results just for 
references to P705 which is not otherwise included in the merged graph, which 
is what I expect.
If the code was running in Fuseki and the graph is the dataset graph (equiv 
union graph I think) then I would like to know how far out from the node the 
validation process will reach.


That depends on the target (or, here, implicit class target) and the shape 
itself.

digression

... something that I've experimented with - analysing the shapes to determine 
execution strategy. There are some useful cases:

* the validation is only on the triple added (e.g. sh:datatype) - and does not 
need access to the database so it can be done in parallel outside the 
transaction.
* the validation needs local changes (e.g. minCount) to the entity (subject and 
all triples with that subject) - that can be used to reduce the number of 
validations done. If a entity isn't touched, no validation necessary.
* global - needs access to the whole database. Not much can be done except 
execute inline at the end of the transaction. Often these are SPARQL constraits 
where you can e.g. count the triples.

/digression


For example, given that the shapes include the shape:
bds:PersonShape-hasParent
 a   sh:PropertyShape ;
 sh:classbdo:Person ;
 sh:description  "this Person may have at most two parents."@en ;
 sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;


??


 sh:maxCount 2 ;
 sh:path bdo:hasParent ;
.
Then I thought that the validation process would check just that:
 P705 rdf:type bdo:Person .
as well as validating the count constraint; and in the case of the shape:



Yes - there are two constraints: sh:class and sh:maxCount


bds:PersonShape-hasFather
 a   sh:PropertyShape ;
 sh:description  "this Person may have a father."@en ;
 sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;


Is that supposed to be:

sh:path [ sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild  ]

?

A property shape has a sh:path and that sh:path can be a inverse path.

sh:inversePath isn't used on the property shape itself.


 sh:maxCount 1 ;
 sh:node bds:MaleShape ;
 sh:path bdo:hasFather ;


and now we have two sh:paths?

(If that is you shape, the sh:inversePath is going to be ignored as it is out 
of place.)


.
will in addition check that:
 P705 bdo:gender bdr:GenderMale .
and not check any other constraints on P705, such as its students or kinship 
relations.


If P705 is reached with "sh:path bdo:hasFather"


The purpose being that when a user has “edited” an existing resource or 
“created” a new resource then we just want to validate the changed or new 
resource without having the validation process traverse all resources reachable 
from P707 via arbitrary length paths, which is unnecessary.
Assuming the validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) works along the lines I’ve 
sketched, then since the shacl endpoint doesn’t use this method it would take 
an extension to the endpoint or a new endpoint to accomplish want I’ve 
described.


See the code.

validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node)

executes the shapes (any that apply) to the single focus node.  It does check 
the shapes to see which apply so the target clause (inc implicit targets) has 
to be something that would include the node.



I’m happy to raise an issue and create a PR if that makes sense.


Great.

Andy


Thank you again very much,
Chris

On May 14, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:

On 14/05/2020 19:06, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,
I want to validate a named graph in the context of the union graph. I don’t want to 
validate the union graph. The union graph has information in it such as the ontology 
which defines subClass and subProperty relations needed to successfully validate a 
target 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the very helpful feedback.

1) I did not understand the proper use of sh:inversePath. I thought it was to 
verify that the target of the target/value of the sh:path property had a 
property equal to the value of sh:inversePath. I see that is just not correct.

2) I’ve found an effective solution to the problem of limiting validation to 
just the triples that should be in the graph of a resource such as bdr:P707 by 
creating a new shapes module that uses  [ ] sh:deactivated true   on any 
propertyShapes that leave the graph in question.

I’m getting closer to being able to formulate a plausible extension to the 
shacl endpoint.

Thank you again for your help in the midst of all the 3.15.0 work,
Chris


> On May 16, 2020, at 5:45 AM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 15/05/2020 00:57, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>> Hello Andy,
>> I have standalone code using validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) where 
>> the graph is a merge of the target graph, e.g., P707, and the ontology 
>> graph. This works fine to validate examples like P707 generating sh:results 
>> just for references to P705 which is not otherwise included in the merged 
>> graph, which is what I expect.
>> If the code was running in Fuseki and the graph is the dataset graph (equiv 
>> union graph I think) then I would like to know how far out from the node the 
>> validation process will reach.
> 
> That depends on the target (or, here, implicit class target) and the shape 
> itself.
> 
> digression
> 
> ... something that I've experimented with - analysing the shapes to determine 
> execution strategy. There are some useful cases:
> 
> * the validation is only on the triple added (e.g. sh:datatype) - and does 
> not need access to the database so it can be done in parallel outside the 
> transaction.
> * the validation needs local changes (e.g. minCount) to the entity (subject 
> and all triples with that subject) - that can be used to reduce the number of 
> validations done. If a entity isn't touched, no validation necessary.
> * global - needs access to the whole database. Not much can be done except 
> execute inline at the end of the transaction. Often these are SPARQL 
> constraits where you can e.g. count the triples.
> 
> /digression
> 
>> For example, given that the shapes include the shape:
>> bds:PersonShape-hasParent
>> a   sh:PropertyShape ;
>> sh:classbdo:Person ;
>> sh:description  "this Person may have at most two parents."@en ;
>> sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;
> 
> ??
> 
>> sh:maxCount 2 ;
>> sh:path bdo:hasParent ;
>> .
>> Then I thought that the validation process would check just that:
>> P705 rdf:type bdo:Person .
>> as well as validating the count constraint; and in the case of the shape:
> 
> 
> Yes - there are two constraints: sh:class and sh:maxCount
> 
>> bds:PersonShape-hasFather
>> a   sh:PropertyShape ;
>> sh:description  "this Person may have a father."@en ;
>> sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;
> 
> Is that supposed to be:
> 
> sh:path [ sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild  ]
> 
> ?
> 
> A property shape has a sh:path and that sh:path can be a inverse path.
> 
> sh:inversePath isn't used on the property shape itself.
> 
>> sh:maxCount 1 ;
>> sh:node bds:MaleShape ;
>> sh:path bdo:hasFather ;
> 
> and now we have two sh:paths?
> 
> (If that is you shape, the sh:inversePath is going to be ignored as it is out 
> of place.)
> 
>> .
>> will in addition check that:
>> P705 bdo:gender bdr:GenderMale .
>> and not check any other constraints on P705, such as its students or kinship 
>> relations.
> 
> If P705 is reached with "sh:path bdo:hasFather"
> 
>> The purpose being that when a user has “edited” an existing resource or 
>> “created” a new resource then we just want to validate the changed or new 
>> resource without having the validation process traverse all resources 
>> reachable from P707 via arbitrary length paths, which is unnecessary.
>> Assuming the validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) works along the lines 
>> I’ve sketched, then since the shacl endpoint doesn’t use this method it 
>> would take an extension to the endpoint or a new endpoint to accomplish want 
>> I’ve described.
> 
> See the code.
> 
>validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node)
> 
> executes the shapes (any that apply) to the single focus node.  It does check 
> the shapes to see which apply so the target clause (inc implicit targets) has 
> to be something that would include the node.
> 
> 
>> I’m happy to raise an issue and create a PR if that makes sense.
> 
> Great.
> 
>Andy
> 
>> Thank you again very much,
>> Chris
>>> On May 14, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 14/05/2020 19:06, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
 Hi Andy,
 I want to validate a named graph in the context of the union graph. I 
 don’t want to validate the union graph. 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

Related/minor:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1897

?graph= tidied up so that GSP and SHACL validation service have the same 
behaviour.


Andy

On 16/05/2020 11:45, Andy Seaborne wrote:



On 15/05/2020 00:57, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hello Andy,

I have standalone code using validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) 
where the graph is a merge of the target graph, e.g., P707, and the 
ontology graph. This works fine to validate examples like P707 
generating sh:results just for references to P705 which is not 
otherwise included in the merged graph, which is what I expect.


If the code was running in Fuseki and the graph is the dataset graph 
(equiv union graph I think) then I would like to know how far out from 
the node the validation process will reach.


That depends on the target (or, here, implicit class target) and the 
shape itself.


digression

  ... something that I've experimented with - analysing the shapes to 
determine execution strategy. There are some useful cases:


* the validation is only on the triple added (e.g. sh:datatype) - and 
does not need access to the database so it can be done in parallel 
outside the transaction.
* the validation needs local changes (e.g. minCount) to the entity 
(subject and all triples with that subject) - that can be used to reduce 
the number of validations done. If a entity isn't touched, no validation 
necessary.
* global - needs access to the whole database. Not much can be done 
except execute inline at the end of the transaction. Often these are 
SPARQL constraits where you can e.g. count the triples.


/digression



For example, given that the shapes include the shape:

bds:PersonShape-hasParent
 a   sh:PropertyShape ;
 sh:class    bdo:Person ;
 sh:description  "this Person may have at most two parents."@en ;
 sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;


??


 sh:maxCount 2 ;
 sh:path bdo:hasParent ;
.

Then I thought that the validation process would check just that:

 P705 rdf:type bdo:Person .

as well as validating the count constraint; and in the case of the shape:



Yes - there are two constraints: sh:class and sh:maxCount



bds:PersonShape-hasFather
 a   sh:PropertyShape ;
 sh:description  "this Person may have a father."@en ;
 sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;


Is that supposed to be:

sh:path [ sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild  ]

?

A property shape has a sh:path and that sh:path can be a inverse path.

sh:inversePath isn't used on the property shape itself.


 sh:maxCount 1 ;
 sh:node bds:MaleShape ;
 sh:path bdo:hasFather ;


and now we have two sh:paths?

(If that is you shape, the sh:inversePath is going to be ignored as it 
is out of place.)



.

will in addition check that:

 P705 bdo:gender bdr:GenderMale .

and not check any other constraints on P705, such as its students or 
kinship relations.


If P705 is reached with "sh:path bdo:hasFather"



The purpose being that when a user has “edited” an existing resource 
or “created” a new resource then we just want to validate the changed 
or new resource without having the validation process traverse all 
resources reachable from P707 via arbitrary length paths, which is 
unnecessary.


Assuming the validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) works along the 
lines I’ve sketched, then since the shacl endpoint doesn’t use this 
method it would take an extension to the endpoint or a new endpoint to 
accomplish want I’ve described.


See the code.

     validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node)

executes the shapes (any that apply) to the single focus node.  It does 
check the shapes to see which apply so the target clause (inc implicit 
targets) has to be something that would include the node.




I’m happy to raise an issue and create a PR if that makes sense.


Great.

     Andy



Thank you again very much,
Chris




On May 14, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:

On 14/05/2020 19:06, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,
I want to validate a named graph in the context of the union graph. 
I don’t want to validate the union graph. The union graph has 
information in it such as the ontology which defines subClass and 
subProperty relations needed to successfully validate a target graph 
such as http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
.


I don't understand "in the context of the union graph."

Isn't "Context" in RDF is "merge the graphs"?

Validation is a process that operates on a shapes graph (which is 
parsed so really its just shapes - anything else in it is ignored) 
and a data graph.


There's no structure to the data graph - it is everything being 
validated.


I did suggest some SHACL extensions

   https://afs.github.io/shacl-datasets.html

but they are hypothetical extensions.


In code, you could make a temporary union of two or more graphs to 
make a single data graph.


"a named graph in 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

On 15/05/2020 00:57, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hello Andy,

I have standalone code using validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) where the 
graph is a merge of the target graph, e.g., P707, and the ontology graph. This 
works fine to validate examples like P707 generating sh:results just for 
references to P705 which is not otherwise included in the merged graph, which 
is what I expect.

If the code was running in Fuseki and the graph is the dataset graph (equiv 
union graph I think) then I would like to know how far out from the node the 
validation process will reach.


That depends on the target (or, here, implicit class target) and the 
shape itself.


digression

 ... something that I've experimented with - analysing the shapes to 
determine execution strategy. There are some useful cases:


* the validation is only on the triple added (e.g. sh:datatype) - and 
does not need access to the database so it can be done in parallel 
outside the transaction.
* the validation needs local changes (e.g. minCount) to the entity 
(subject and all triples with that subject) - that can be used to reduce 
the number of validations done. If a entity isn't touched, no validation 
necessary.
* global - needs access to the whole database. Not much can be done 
except execute inline at the end of the transaction. Often these are 
SPARQL constraits where you can e.g. count the triples.


/digression



For example, given that the shapes include the shape:

bds:PersonShape-hasParent
 a   sh:PropertyShape ;
 sh:classbdo:Person ;
 sh:description  "this Person may have at most two parents."@en ;
 sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;


??


 sh:maxCount 2 ;
 sh:path bdo:hasParent ;
.

Then I thought that the validation process would check just that:

 P705 rdf:type bdo:Person .

as well as validating the count constraint; and in the case of the shape:



Yes - there are two constraints: sh:class and sh:maxCount



bds:PersonShape-hasFather
 a   sh:PropertyShape ;
 sh:description  "this Person may have a father."@en ;
 sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;


Is that supposed to be:

sh:path [ sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild  ]

?

A property shape has a sh:path and that sh:path can be a inverse path.

sh:inversePath isn't used on the property shape itself.


 sh:maxCount 1 ;
 sh:node bds:MaleShape ;
 sh:path bdo:hasFather ;


and now we have two sh:paths?

(If that is you shape, the sh:inversePath is going to be ignored as it 
is out of place.)



.

will in addition check that:

 P705 bdo:gender bdr:GenderMale .

and not check any other constraints on P705, such as its students or kinship 
relations.


If P705 is reached with "sh:path bdo:hasFather"



The purpose being that when a user has “edited” an existing resource or 
“created” a new resource then we just want to validate the changed or new 
resource without having the validation process traverse all resources reachable 
from P707 via arbitrary length paths, which is unnecessary.

Assuming the validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) works along the lines I’ve 
sketched, then since the shacl endpoint doesn’t use this method it would take 
an extension to the endpoint or a new endpoint to accomplish want I’ve 
described.


See the code.

validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node)

executes the shapes (any that apply) to the single focus node.  It does 
check the shapes to see which apply so the target clause (inc implicit 
targets) has to be something that would include the node.




I’m happy to raise an issue and create a PR if that makes sense.


Great.

Andy



Thank you again very much,
Chris




On May 14, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:

On 14/05/2020 19:06, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,
I want to validate a named graph in the context of the union graph. I don’t want to 
validate the union graph. The union graph has information in it such as the ontology 
which defines subClass and subProperty relations needed to successfully validate a 
target graph such as http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
.


I don't understand "in the context of the union graph."

Isn't "Context" in RDF is "merge the graphs"?

Validation is a process that operates on a shapes graph (which is parsed so 
really its just shapes - anything else in it is ignored) and a data graph.

There's no structure to the data graph - it is everything being validated.

I did suggest some SHACL extensions

   https://afs.github.io/shacl-datasets.html

but they are hypothetical extensions.


In code, you could make a temporary union of two or more graphs to make a 
single data graph.

"a named graph in the context of the union graph."

So the NG is in addition to the dataset graphs? or is in in the dataset already?


In the SHACL service ?graph= is the data target and is taken from the dataset.


Also P707 refers to 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hello Andy,

I have standalone code using validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) where the 
graph is a merge of the target graph, e.g., P707, and the ontology graph. This 
works fine to validate examples like P707 generating sh:results just for 
references to P705 which is not otherwise included in the merged graph, which 
is what I expect.

If the code was running in Fuseki and the graph is the dataset graph (equiv 
union graph I think) then I would like to know how far out from the node the 
validation process will reach.

For example, given that the shapes include the shape:

bds:PersonShape-hasParent
a   sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:classbdo:Person ;
sh:description  "this Person may have at most two parents."@en ;
sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;
sh:maxCount 2 ;
sh:path bdo:hasParent ;
.

Then I thought that the validation process would check just that:

P705 rdf:type bdo:Person .

as well as validating the count constraint; and in the case of the shape:

bds:PersonShape-hasFather
a   sh:PropertyShape ;
sh:description  "this Person may have a father."@en ;
sh:inversePath  bdo:hasChild ;
sh:maxCount 1 ;
sh:node bds:MaleShape ;
sh:path bdo:hasFather ;
.

will in addition check that:

P705 bdo:gender bdr:GenderMale .

and not check any other constraints on P705, such as its students or kinship 
relations.

The purpose being that when a user has “edited” an existing resource or 
“created” a new resource then we just want to validate the changed or new 
resource without having the validation process traverse all resources reachable 
from P707 via arbitrary length paths, which is unnecessary.

Assuming the validator.validate(Shapes, Graph, Node) works along the lines I’ve 
sketched, then since the shacl endpoint doesn’t use this method it would take 
an extension to the endpoint or a new endpoint to accomplish want I’ve 
described.

I’m happy to raise an issue and create a PR if that makes sense.

Thank you again very much,
Chris



> On May 14, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> On 14/05/2020 19:06, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>> I want to validate a named graph in the context of the union graph. I don’t 
>> want to validate the union graph. The union graph has information in it such 
>> as the ontology which defines subClass and subProperty relations needed to 
>> successfully validate a target graph such as http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
>> .
> 
> I don't understand "in the context of the union graph."
> 
> Isn't "Context" in RDF is "merge the graphs"?
> 
> Validation is a process that operates on a shapes graph (which is parsed so 
> really its just shapes - anything else in it is ignored) and a data graph.
> 
> There's no structure to the data graph - it is everything being validated.
> 
> I did suggest some SHACL extensions
> 
>   https://afs.github.io/shacl-datasets.html
> 
> but they are hypothetical extensions.
> 
> 
> In code, you could make a temporary union of two or more graphs to make a 
> single data graph.
> 
> "a named graph in the context of the union graph."
> 
> So the NG is in addition to the dataset graphs? or is in in the dataset 
> already?
> 
> 
> In the SHACL service ?graph= is the data target and is taken from the dataset.
> 
>> Also P707 refers to a parent and teacher P705 which needs to be verified 
>> that it meets minimum criteria for a Person.
>> I thought that validate(shapes, graph, node)
> 
> /** Produce a full validation report for this node in the data. */
> 
> i.e. use node as the focus node (like sh:targetNode) and execute the shapes 
> only with that node.
> 
> But does P707 have one focus node or many?
> 
>> should accomplish this if graph = the dataset graph which contains all these 
>> additional bits of information.
>> That’s why the endpoint is interesting since it provides in principle access 
>> to using shacl inside of Fuseki, where the entire dataset is available, 
>> without having to write an independent bit of code that we add to our fuseki 
>> deployments.
> 
> There is nothing special about Fuseki endpoint - any Dataset has a union 
> graph.
> 
> It's a way to call
> 
> ValidationReport report =
>ShaclValidator.get().validate(shapesGraph, data);
> 
> on a remote data graph.
> 
>> I hope this clarifies what I’m wanting to accomplish. I probably don’t 
>> understand what validate(shapes, graph, node) is supposed to do.
>> Thanks for your patience,
>> Chris
>>> On May 14, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
>>> 
>>> ?graph names the graph to be validated.
>>> 
>>> ?graph can be a URI of a named graph in the dataset
>>> 
>>> or ?graph=default for the default graph (note: this is the storage default 
>>> graph, not the union default graph)
>>> 
>>> or ?graph=union for the union of all named graphs which is what I think 
>>> you're asking for.

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

On 14/05/2020 19:06, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,

I want to validate a named graph in the context of the union graph. I don’t want to 
validate the union graph. The union graph has information in it such as the ontology 
which defines subClass and subProperty relations needed to successfully validate a 
target graph such as http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
.


I don't understand "in the context of the union graph."

Isn't "Context" in RDF is "merge the graphs"?

Validation is a process that operates on a shapes graph (which is parsed 
so really its just shapes - anything else in it is ignored) and a data 
graph.


There's no structure to the data graph - it is everything being validated.

I did suggest some SHACL extensions

   https://afs.github.io/shacl-datasets.html

but they are hypothetical extensions.


In code, you could make a temporary union of two or more graphs to make 
a single data graph.


"a named graph in the context of the union graph."

So the NG is in addition to the dataset graphs? or is in in the dataset 
already?



In the SHACL service ?graph= is the data target and is taken from the 
dataset.



Also P707 refers to a parent and teacher P705 which needs to be verified that 
it meets minimum criteria for a Person.

I thought that validate(shapes, graph, node)


/** Produce a full validation report for this node in the data. */

i.e. use node as the focus node (like sh:targetNode) and execute the 
shapes only with that node.


But does P707 have one focus node or many?


should accomplish this if graph = the dataset graph which contains all these 
additional bits of information.

That’s why the endpoint is interesting since it provides in principle access to 
using shacl inside of Fuseki, where the entire dataset is available, without 
having to write an independent bit of code that we add to our fuseki 
deployments.


There is nothing special about Fuseki endpoint - any Dataset has a union 
graph.


It's a way to call

ValidationReport report =
ShaclValidator.get().validate(shapesGraph, data);

on a remote data graph.



I hope this clarifies what I’m wanting to accomplish. I probably don’t 
understand what validate(shapes, graph, node) is supposed to do.

Thanks for your patience,
Chris



On May 14, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:

?graph names the graph to be validated.

?graph can be a URI of a named graph in the dataset

or ?graph=default for the default graph (note: this is the storage default 
graph, not the union default graph)

or ?graph=union for the union of all named graphs which is what I think you're 
asking for.

(This is the org.apache.jena.fuseki.servlets.SHACL_Validation servlet.)


On 14/05/2020 15:40, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,
Thanks very much for the shacl guidance. The use of sh:targetSubjectsOf is 
quite helpful. I replaced the bdo:personName w/ bdo:isRoot which must be 
present on any Entity resource so that if a Work or Place or other entity is 
checked it will fail if it isn’t a bdo:Person.
This still fails in the event that there is no bdo:isRoot so in some way that 
negative needs also to be caught to weed out really malformed graphs.
I still have a question about the shacl endpoint:
 Is the ?graph parameter validated in the context of the entire dataset 
specified in the endpoint URL or just the named graph itself?
It appears to be just the named graph itself so is the same as running the 
shacl command outside of Fuseki.


Yes - as above, it can be the union.


We are wanting a validation of the named graph against the entire (union) 
dataset graph


Not sure what "against" means here. There is a shapes graph in the validate 
request and data graph, which can be the union graph of the dataset.

To direct the validation to a certain node, use sh:targetNode.


which will have sufficient information about subClassOf* and external resources 
like P705 without entailing a validation of all nodes reachable from triples in 
the ?graph named graph. This might be similar to:
 validator.validate(shapes, dsg, node)
where node would be the root resource URI like, >.
Is this something that needs an issue raised and a bit of extension of the 
endpoint or is there another way to get this kind of behavior through the 
endpoint?
Thank you very much for your help,
Chris

On May 13, 2020, at 12:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:



On 13/05/2020 16:03, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,
Thank you for the reply. I can get your example to work as you indicate, but 
have some questions:
1) I went through the latest SHACL draft 
 and I cannot find how to know that 
sh:targetNode always executes. It’s also not clear to me what it means to execute. I 
thought that sh:targetNode X was a way to restrict a shape to X in the data graph, 
whatever X might be.


It sets the target node to X and that becomes $this.

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hi Andy,

I want to validate a named graph in the context of the union graph. I don’t 
want to validate the union graph. The union graph has information in it such as 
the ontology which defines subClass and subProperty relations needed to 
successfully validate a target graph such as http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
. 

Also P707 refers to a parent and teacher P705 which needs to be verified that 
it meets minimum criteria for a Person.

I thought that validate(shapes, graph, node) should accomplish this if graph = 
the dataset graph which contains all these additional bits of information.

That’s why the endpoint is interesting since it provides in principle access to 
using shacl inside of Fuseki, where the entire dataset is available, without 
having to write an independent bit of code that we add to our fuseki 
deployments.

I hope this clarifies what I’m wanting to accomplish. I probably don’t 
understand what validate(shapes, graph, node) is supposed to do.

Thanks for your patience,
Chris


> On May 14, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> ?graph names the graph to be validated.
> 
> ?graph can be a URI of a named graph in the dataset
> 
> or ?graph=default for the default graph (note: this is the storage default 
> graph, not the union default graph)
> 
> or ?graph=union for the union of all named graphs which is what I think 
> you're asking for.
> 
> (This is the org.apache.jena.fuseki.servlets.SHACL_Validation servlet.)
> 
> 
> On 14/05/2020 15:40, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>> Thanks very much for the shacl guidance. The use of sh:targetSubjectsOf is 
>> quite helpful. I replaced the bdo:personName w/ bdo:isRoot which must be 
>> present on any Entity resource so that if a Work or Place or other entity is 
>> checked it will fail if it isn’t a bdo:Person.
>> This still fails in the event that there is no bdo:isRoot so in some way 
>> that negative needs also to be caught to weed out really malformed graphs.
>> I still have a question about the shacl endpoint:
>> Is the ?graph parameter validated in the context of the entire dataset 
>> specified in the endpoint URL or just the named graph itself?
>> It appears to be just the named graph itself so is the same as running the 
>> shacl command outside of Fuseki.
> 
> Yes - as above, it can be the union.
> 
>> We are wanting a validation of the named graph against the entire (union) 
>> dataset graph
> 
> Not sure what "against" means here. There is a shapes graph in the validate 
> request and data graph, which can be the union graph of the dataset.
> 
> To direct the validation to a certain node, use sh:targetNode.
> 
>> which will have sufficient information about subClassOf* and external 
>> resources like P705 without entailing a validation of all nodes reachable 
>> from triples in the ?graph named graph. This might be similar to:
>> validator.validate(shapes, dsg, node)
>> where node would be the root resource URI like, 
>> >.
>> Is this something that needs an issue raised and a bit of extension of the 
>> endpoint or is there another way to get this kind of behavior through the 
>> endpoint?
>> Thank you very much for your help,
>> Chris
>>> On May 13, 2020, at 12:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 13/05/2020 16:03, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
 Hi Andy,
 Thank you for the reply. I can get your example to work as you indicate, 
 but have some questions:
 1) I went through the latest SHACL draft 
  and I cannot find how to know 
 that sh:targetNode always executes. It’s also not clear to me what it 
 means to execute. I thought that sh:targetNode X was a way to restrict a 
 shape to X in the data graph, whatever X might be.
>>> 
>>> It sets the target node to X and that becomes $this.
>>> 
>>> It does not say the target has to be in the graph.
>>> 
>>> The tests use this idiom quite a lot.
>>> 
>>> This matters because in some places the spec is not complete and without 
>>> some light reverse engineering from the tests, I'd not have been able to 
>>> implement some of the SPARQL functionality (particularly SPARQL components, 
>>> not the SPARQl constraints we're talking about here).
>>> 
>>> Also, RDF graphs do not have a formally defined set of nodes - they are a 
>>> set of edges and any nodes you want can be used in triples.
>>> 
 2) What I’m trying to do is validate that a resource like 
 http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/P707  is a 
 Person, which at a minimum means that:
 >  a  
 > .
 is present in the http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
 . The PersonShape 
 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

?graph names the graph to be validated.

?graph can be a URI of a named graph in the dataset

or ?graph=default for the default graph (note: this is the storage 
default graph, not the union default graph)


or ?graph=union for the union of all named graphs which is what I think 
you're asking for.


(This is the org.apache.jena.fuseki.servlets.SHACL_Validation servlet.)


On 14/05/2020 15:40, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,

Thanks very much for the shacl guidance. The use of sh:targetSubjectsOf is 
quite helpful. I replaced the bdo:personName w/ bdo:isRoot which must be 
present on any Entity resource so that if a Work or Place or other entity is 
checked it will fail if it isn’t a bdo:Person.

This still fails in the event that there is no bdo:isRoot so in some way that 
negative needs also to be caught to weed out really malformed graphs.

I still have a question about the shacl endpoint:

 Is the ?graph parameter validated in the context of the entire dataset 
specified in the endpoint URL or just the named graph itself?

It appears to be just the named graph itself so is the same as running the 
shacl command outside of Fuseki.


Yes - as above, it can be the union.



We are wanting a validation of the named graph against the entire (union) 
dataset graph


Not sure what "against" means here. There is a shapes graph in the 
validate request and data graph, which can be the union graph of the 
dataset.


To direct the validation to a certain node, use sh:targetNode.


which will have sufficient information about subClassOf* and external resources 
like P705 without entailing a validation of all nodes reachable from triples in 
the ?graph named graph. This might be similar to:

 validator.validate(shapes, dsg, node)

where node would be the root resource URI like, >.

Is this something that needs an issue raised and a bit of extension of the 
endpoint or is there another way to get this kind of behavior through the 
endpoint?

Thank you very much for your help,
Chris



On May 13, 2020, at 12:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:



On 13/05/2020 16:03, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,
Thank you for the reply. I can get your example to work as you indicate, but 
have some questions:
1) I went through the latest SHACL draft 
 and I cannot find how to know that 
sh:targetNode always executes. It’s also not clear to me what it means to execute. I 
thought that sh:targetNode X was a way to restrict a shape to X in the data graph, 
whatever X might be.


It sets the target node to X and that becomes $this.

It does not say the target has to be in the graph.

The tests use this idiom quite a lot.

This matters because in some places the spec is not complete and without some 
light reverse engineering from the tests, I'd not have been able to implement 
some of the SPARQL functionality (particularly SPARQL components, not the 
SPARQl constraints we're talking about here).

Also, RDF graphs do not have a formally defined set of nodes - they are a set 
of edges and any nodes you want can be used in triples.


2) What I’m trying to do is validate that a resource like 
http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/P707  is a 
Person, which at a minimum means that:
 >  a  
> .
is present in the http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 . 
The PersonShape 

 has:
 sh:targetClass bdo:Person
but that only serves to say that PersonShape only applies to resources of class bdo:Person 
and if there are none, then there are no violations which means I can try to validate a 
bibliographic element such as http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/W1FPL1 
 which is of class bdo: ImageInstance but of 
course that still sh:conforms true since bds:PersonShape doesn’t apply and hence there 
aren’t any violations. (to see the resources, use 
http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/resource/W1FPL1.ttl 
, for example).
The use case is: a client submits a graph of a resource and claims it to be a bdo:Person 
or a subClassOf* it; and we want to validate the graph as a bdo:Person and so want to get 
the result “false" for bdr:W1FPL1 instead of “true".
It’s our intent to use a tool like shacl for this top-level task as well as 
validating the details liuke having at least one name, a gender, and so on.
I tried using something like your example:
bds:CheckPersonClassShape  a  sh:NodeShape ;
 rdfs:label  "Check Person Class Shape"@en ;
 sh:targetNode "Check Class" ;
 sh:sparql [
   a sh:SPARQLConstraint ;
   sh:prefixes [
 sh:declare [
   

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hi Andy,

Thanks very much for the shacl guidance. The use of sh:targetSubjectsOf is 
quite helpful. I replaced the bdo:personName w/ bdo:isRoot which must be 
present on any Entity resource so that if a Work or Place or other entity is 
checked it will fail if it isn’t a bdo:Person.

This still fails in the event that there is no bdo:isRoot so in some way that 
negative needs also to be caught to weed out really malformed graphs.

I still have a question about the shacl endpoint:

Is the ?graph parameter validated in the context of the entire dataset 
specified in the endpoint URL or just the named graph itself?

It appears to be just the named graph itself so is the same as running the 
shacl command outside of Fuseki.

We are wanting a validation of the named graph against the entire (union) 
dataset graph which will have sufficient information about subClassOf* and 
external resources like P705 without entailing a validation of all nodes 
reachable from triples in the ?graph named graph. This might be similar to:

validator.validate(shapes, dsg, node)

where node would be the root resource URI like, 
>.

Is this something that needs an issue raised and a bit of extension of the 
endpoint or is there another way to get this kind of behavior through the 
endpoint?

Thank you very much for your help,
Chris


> On May 13, 2020, at 12:16 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 13/05/2020 16:03, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>> Thank you for the reply. I can get your example to work as you indicate, but 
>> have some questions:
>> 1) I went through the latest SHACL draft 
>>  and I cannot find how to know 
>> that sh:targetNode always executes. It’s also not clear to me what it means 
>> to execute. I thought that sh:targetNode X was a way to restrict a shape to 
>> X in the data graph, whatever X might be.
> 
> It sets the target node to X and that becomes $this.
> 
> It does not say the target has to be in the graph.
> 
> The tests use this idiom quite a lot.
> 
> This matters because in some places the spec is not complete and without some 
> light reverse engineering from the tests, I'd not have been able to implement 
> some of the SPARQL functionality (particularly SPARQL components, not the 
> SPARQl constraints we're talking about here).
> 
> Also, RDF graphs do not have a formally defined set of nodes - they are a set 
> of edges and any nodes you want can be used in triples.
> 
>> 2) What I’m trying to do is validate that a resource like 
>> http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/P707  is a 
>> Person, which at a minimum means that:
>> >  
>> a  > > .
>> is present in the http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
>> . The PersonShape 
>> 
>>  has:
>> sh:targetClass bdo:Person
>> but that only serves to say that PersonShape only applies to resources of 
>> class bdo:Person and if there are none, then there are no violations which 
>> means I can try to validate a bibliographic element such as 
>> http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/W1FPL1  
>> which is of class bdo: ImageInstance but of course that still sh:conforms 
>> true since bds:PersonShape doesn’t apply and hence there aren’t any 
>> violations. (to see the resources, use 
>> http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/resource/W1FPL1.ttl 
>> , for example).
>> The use case is: a client submits a graph of a resource and claims it to be 
>> a bdo:Person or a subClassOf* it; and we want to validate the graph as a 
>> bdo:Person and so want to get the result “false" for bdr:W1FPL1 instead of 
>> “true".
>> It’s our intent to use a tool like shacl for this top-level task as well as 
>> validating the details liuke having at least one name, a gender, and so on.
>> I tried using something like your example:
>> bds:CheckPersonClassShape  a  sh:NodeShape ;
>> rdfs:label  "Check Person Class Shape"@en ;
>> sh:targetNode "Check Class" ;
>> sh:sparql [
>>   a sh:SPARQLConstraint ;
>>   sh:prefixes [
>> sh:declare [
>>   sh:prefix "rdf" ;
>>   sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#; ;
>> ] , [
>>   sh:prefix "bdo" ;
>>   sh:namespace "http://purl.bdrc.io/ontology/core/; ;
>> ]
>>   ] ;
>>   sh:select """
>> select $this (rdf:type as ?path) (bdo:Person as ?value)
>>  where {
>>filter not exists { $this ?path ?value }
>>  }
>>""" ;
> 
> That query does not look right.
> 
> 1/ $this is the targetNode
> 
> $this is "Check 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

On 13/05/2020 16:03, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi Andy,

Thank you for the reply. I can get your example to work as you indicate, but 
have some questions:

1) I went through the latest SHACL draft 
 and I cannot find how to know that 
sh:targetNode always executes. It’s also not clear to me what it means to execute. I 
thought that sh:targetNode X was a way to restrict a shape to X in the data graph, 
whatever X might be.


It sets the target node to X and that becomes $this.

It does not say the target has to be in the graph.

The tests use this idiom quite a lot.

This matters because in some places the spec is not complete and without 
some light reverse engineering from the tests, I'd not have been able to 
implement some of the SPARQL functionality (particularly SPARQL 
components, not the SPARQl constraints we're talking about here).


Also, RDF graphs do not have a formally defined set of nodes - they are 
a set of edges and any nodes you want can be used in triples.



2) What I’m trying to do is validate that a resource like 
http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/P707  is a 
Person, which at a minimum means that:

 >  a  
> .

is present in the http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 . 
The PersonShape 

 has:

 sh:targetClass bdo:Person

but that only serves to say that PersonShape only applies to resources of class bdo:Person 
and if there are none, then there are no violations which means I can try to validate a 
bibliographic element such as http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/W1FPL1 
 which is of class bdo: ImageInstance but of 
course that still sh:conforms true since bds:PersonShape doesn’t apply and hence there 
aren’t any violations. (to see the resources, use 
http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/resource/W1FPL1.ttl 
, for example).

The use case is: a client submits a graph of a resource and claims it to be a bdo:Person 
or a subClassOf* it; and we want to validate the graph as a bdo:Person and so want to get 
the result “false" for bdr:W1FPL1 instead of “true".

It’s our intent to use a tool like shacl for this top-level task as well as 
validating the details liuke having at least one name, a gender, and so on.

I tried using something like your example:

bds:CheckPersonClassShape  a  sh:NodeShape ;
 rdfs:label  "Check Person Class Shape"@en ;
 sh:targetNode "Check Class" ;
 sh:sparql [
   a sh:SPARQLConstraint ;
   sh:prefixes [
 sh:declare [
   sh:prefix "rdf" ;
   sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#; ;
 ] , [
   sh:prefix "bdo" ;
   sh:namespace "http://purl.bdrc.io/ontology/core/; ;
 ]
   ] ;
   sh:select """
 select $this (rdf:type as ?path) (bdo:Person as ?value)
where {
filter not exists { $this ?path ?value }
}
  """ ;


That query does not look right.

1/ $this is the targetNode

$this is "Check Class" - the shape needs to find the thing that is the 
person amongst the several subjects in the data. That can be in the 
SPARQL or as a target of some kind.


Either set the target to be bdr:P707
or find a signature such has a bdo:personName triple. 
"sh:targetSubjectsOf bdo:personName"

or write some pattern in the SPARQL query.

You may want some "whole graph" validation such as not completely empty 
or has at least some relevant vocabulary to ensure that the data is not 
so off that nothing will trigger.  That's where the sh:targetNode 
"foobar" trick comes in.


2/ It's looking for any triple with $this as subject, not "a bdo:Person"

The SELECT-AS happens after the WHERE.
FILTER NOT EXISTS does not set ?path ?value so if they are unset there 
are free variables.


   filter not exists { $this ?P ?O }

would be just the same and matches any triple with $this as subject.



You want to set ?value and ?path before the FILTER:

  BIND (bdo:Person as ?value)
  BIND (rdf:type as ?path)



or write directly and not worry about ?path and ?value.

  filter not exists { $this rdf:type bdo:Person }

(
The message processing from SPARQL constraints and components doesn't do 
templating.

)


 ] ;
.

But this just always reports a violation that the literal, “Check Class”, 
doesn’t conform, which is true since it isn’t in the data graph.



bds:CheckPersonClassShape  a  sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label  "Check Person Class Shape"@en ;
## sh:targetNode bdr:P707 ;
sh:targetSubjectsOf bdo:personName ;
sh:sparql [
  a sh:SPARQLConstraint ;
  sh:prefixes [
sh:declare [
  

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hi Andy,

Thank you for the reply. I can get your example to work as you indicate, but 
have some questions:

1) I went through the latest SHACL draft 
 and I cannot find how to know that 
sh:targetNode always executes. It’s also not clear to me what it means to 
execute. I thought that sh:targetNode X was a way to restrict a shape to X in 
the data graph, whatever X might be.

2) What I’m trying to do is validate that a resource like 
http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/P707  is a 
Person, which at a minimum means that:

>  a  
> .

is present in the http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
. The PersonShape 

 has:

sh:targetClass bdo:Person

but that only serves to say that PersonShape only applies to resources of class 
bdo:Person and if there are none, then there are no violations which means I 
can try to validate a bibliographic element such as 
http://purl.bdrc.io/resource/W1FPL1  which 
is of class bdo: ImageInstance but of course that still sh:conforms true since 
bds:PersonShape doesn’t apply and hence there aren’t any violations. (to see 
the resources, use http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/resource/W1FPL1.ttl 
, for example).

The use case is: a client submits a graph of a resource and claims it to be a 
bdo:Person or a subClassOf* it; and we want to validate the graph as a 
bdo:Person and so want to get the result “false" for bdr:W1FPL1 instead of 
“true".

It’s our intent to use a tool like shacl for this top-level task as well as 
validating the details liuke having at least one name, a gender, and so on.

I tried using something like your example:

bds:CheckPersonClassShape  a  sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label  "Check Person Class Shape"@en ;
sh:targetNode "Check Class" ;
sh:sparql [
  a sh:SPARQLConstraint ;
  sh:prefixes [
sh:declare [
  sh:prefix "rdf" ;
  sh:namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#; ;
] , [
  sh:prefix "bdo" ;
  sh:namespace "http://purl.bdrc.io/ontology/core/; ;
]
  ] ;
  sh:select """
select $this (rdf:type as ?path) (bdo:Person as ?value)
where {
   filter not exists { $this ?path ?value }
}
  """ ;
] ;
.

But this just always reports a violation that the literal, “Check Class”, 
doesn’t conform, which is true since it isn’t in the data graph.

3) The original reason for wanting to use the shacl endpoint was so that we 
could PUT the submitted graph in the Fuseki dataset and then use the endpoint 
to validate the resource bdr:P707 (or bdr:W1FPL1) as a Person (or not) with the 
rest of the dataset graph available to handle things like subClassOf*  and 
subPropertyOf* for various items as well as validating the minimum of resources 
referenced by P707 such as that P705 is a male person and hence can be a father 
of P707.

The graph for P707 that is submitted would only have references to P705, with 
no properties on P705, since that resource is in its own graph.

I thought this is pretty much how validate(Shapes Graph, Node) would work, 
where Graph would be the union dataset graph.

I’m evidently missing some understanding.

I appreciate your patience,
Chris



> On May 12, 2020, at 3:52 AM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Here's a shape that always executes and tests for an empty data graph.
> 
> # No violation
> shacl validate -v -shapes ex-shapes.ttl -data not-empty.ttl
> 
> # Violation
> shacl validate -v -shapes ex-shapes.ttl -data empty.nt
> 
> "sh:targetNode" always executes.
> 
> With this pattern, the SPARQL query can do arbitrary checks.
> 
>Andy
> 
> ## ex-shapes.ttl
> PREFIX rdf: 
> PREFIX rdfs:
> 
> PREFIX sh:  
> PREFIX xsd: 
> 
> PREFIX ex:
> 
> ex:NotEmptyGraphShape
>  rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
>  sh:targetNode "Empty Graph" ;
>  sh:sparql [
>a sh:SPARQLConstraint ;
>sh:select """
>   SELECT $this ?value
>   WHERE {
>FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?s ?p ?o }
>   }
>   """ ;
>   ] .
> 
> On 11/05/2020 17:14, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
> 
>> I appreciate that it works that way but until and unless I can understand 
>> your point about
>>  [] sh:targetNode ex:myNode
>> then I don’t know how to distinguish: 1) no violations because a Person 
>> graph conforms to the PersonShapes - like there’s no Work indicated as a 
>> parent of the person or a rdfs:label is used where a 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

Chris,

Here's a shape that always executes and tests for an empty data graph.

# No violation
shacl validate -v -shapes ex-shapes.ttl -data not-empty.ttl

# Violation
shacl validate -v -shapes ex-shapes.ttl -data empty.nt

"sh:targetNode" always executes.

With this pattern, the SPARQL query can do arbitrary checks.

Andy

## ex-shapes.ttl
PREFIX rdf: 
PREFIX rdfs:

PREFIX sh:  
PREFIX xsd: 

PREFIX ex:

ex:NotEmptyGraphShape
  rdf:type sh:NodeShape ;
  sh:targetNode "Empty Graph" ;
  sh:sparql [
a sh:SPARQLConstraint ;
sh:select """
SELECT $this ?value
WHERE {
FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?s ?p ?o }
}
""" ;
   ] .

On 11/05/2020 17:14, Chris Tomlinson wrote:


I appreciate that it works that way but until and unless I can understand your 
point about

  [] sh:targetNode ex:myNode

then I don’t know how to distinguish: 1) no violations because a Person graph 
conforms to the PersonShapes - like there’s no Work indicated as a parent of 
the person or a rdfs:label is used where a skos:prefLabel is expected; versus 
2) no violations because the question is vacuous like asking if a Work looks 
like a person or an empty non-existent graph looks like a person.

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hi Andy,

> On May 11, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/05/2020 16:27, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>> Darn it!!
>> When I use the correct parameter name it “works":
>> curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes | curl -XPOST 
>> --data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
>> 'http://host:port/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?graph=http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707’
>> I just am not getting over seeing sh:conforms true when it seems like a 
>> third result should be present.
> 
> sh:conforms  true ;
> 
> will only appear if there are no violations.

I appreciate that it works that way but until and unless I can understand your 
point about

 [] sh:targetNode ex:myNode

then I don’t know how to distinguish: 1) no violations because a Person graph 
conforms to the PersonShapes - like there’s no Work indicated as a parent of 
the person or a rdfs:label is used where a skos:prefLabel is expected; versus 
2) no violations because the question is vacuous like asking if a Work looks 
like a person or an empty non-existent graph looks like a person. 

I understand that the shapes graphs in general are not exhaustive and that 
there certainly can be properties on a resource in the target graph that aren’t 
mentioned in the shapes graph; however, when developing shapes in particular it 
seems like knowing whether I’m getting conforms true simply because the shapes 
graph says nothing about the content of the data graph versus saying something 
true about the (part of) the target data graph.


>> I think I don’t get how to properly think of shacl validation.
> 
> A small illustration would help ...

When I request the endpoint to validate P707 as above, I get the same results 
as with the small standalone tests:

[ ash:ValidationReport ;
  sh:conforms  false ;
  sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
 sh:focusNode  bdr:P707 ;
 sh:resultMessage  
"Node[NodeShape[http://purl.bdrc.io/ontology/shapes/core/MaleShape]] at 
focusNode " ;
 sh:resultPath bdo:hasFather ;
 sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
 sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:NodeConstraintComponent ;
 sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-hasFather ;
 sh:value  bdr:P705
   ] ;
  sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
 sh:focusNode  bdr:P707 ;
 sh:resultMessage  
"ClassConstraint[]: Expected class 
: for 
" ;
 sh:resultPath bdo:hasParent ;
 sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
 sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:ClassConstraintComponent ;
 sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-hasParent ;
 sh:value  bdr:P705
   ] ;
  sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
 sh:focusNode  bdr:P707 ;
 sh:resultMessage  
"ClassConstraint[]: Expected class 
: for 
" ;
 sh:resultPath bdo:kinWith ;
 sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
 sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:ClassConstraintComponent ;
 sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-kinWith ;
 sh:value  bdr:P705
   ] ;
  sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
 sh:focusNode  bdr:P707 ;
 sh:resultMessage  
"ClassConstraint[]: Expected class 
: for 
" ;
 sh:resultPath bdo:personGender ;
 sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
 sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:ClassConstraintComponent ;
 sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-gender ;
 sh:value  bdr:GenderMale
   ] ;
  sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
 sh:focusNode  bdr:P707 ;
 sh:resultMessage  
"ClassConstraint[]: Expected class 
: for 
" ;
 sh:resultPath bdo:personStudentOf ;
 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

On 11/05/2020 16:27, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Darn it!!

When I use the correct parameter name it “works":

curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes | curl -XPOST 
--data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
'http://host:port/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?graph=http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707’

I just am not getting over seeing sh:conforms true when it seems like a third 
result should be present.


sh:conforms  true ;

will only appear if there are no violations.



I think I don’t get how to properly think of shacl validation.


A small illustration would help ...



Anyway sorry to bother ,
Chris



On May 11, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Chris Tomlinson  
wrote:

Hi Andy,


On May 10, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Andy Seaborne mailto:a...@apache.org>> wrote:

On 08/05/2020 21:34, Chris Tomlinson wrote:


2) In any event, when I call the endpoint like:
curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes 
 | curl -XPOST --data-binary @-  
--header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
'http://ahost:aport/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
'


Maybe it's email corruption but that isn't the invocation syntax.

That should have ?graph=

Otherwise it defaults to "?graph=default" which seems consistent with the 
report.

"?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 " is going to 
be ignored and for you that's the union default graph.


I’ve tried adding query= parameter and it doesn’t make any difference:

curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes 
 | curl -XPOST --data-binary @-  
--header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
'http://host:port/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?query=http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
'

I get the same results as I reported. When using PersonShapes I see:

[ ash:ValidationReport ;
   sh:conforms  false ;
   sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
  sh:focusNode  bdr:UNKNOWN_Person ;
  sh:resultMessage  "minCount[1]: Invalid cardinality: 
expected min 1: Got count = 0" ;
  sh:resultPath bdo:personName ;
  sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
  sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:MinCountConstraintComponent ;
  sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-personName
]
] .

Regardless of whether a Person graph (P707), Work graph (W1FPL1), or no graph 
(NO_GRAPH) is used.

When using WorkShapes everything reports sh:conforms true ;.

I have written small test cases using the jena-shacl libs that fetch the above 
shapes and target graphs and they produce expected validation results.

To fully conform some elements of the dataset union graph are needed which is 
why I’m investigating the shacl endpoint as a way of performing validation of  
single graph in the context of the entire dataset.



Is there any way to tell whether the shapes graph in some sense doesn’t apply 
to the data graph? This seems like an important distinction.


You can add a constraint that is always triggered.

[] sh:targetNode ex:myNode

is always triggered; it does not require ex:myNode to be in the data.

 From there, a SPARQL constraint could do any validations for "right graph", "empty 
graph" etc.


Thanks for the pointer. I’ll explore this idea once I get more understanding.

Also, what is the relationship of jena-shacl to TopBraid SHACL API 
?


jena-shacl is part of the Jena project.

TopQuadrant/shacl is built using Jena - it is an independent project.

Andy



Thanks,
Chris

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Darn it!!

When I use the correct parameter name it “works":

curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes | curl -XPOST 
--data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
'http://host:port/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?graph=http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707’

I just am not getting over seeing sh:conforms true when it seems like a third 
result should be present.

I think I don’t get how to properly think of shacl validation.

Anyway sorry to bother ,
Chris


> On May 11, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Chris Tomlinson  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
>> On May 10, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Andy Seaborne > > wrote:
>> 
>> On 08/05/2020 21:34, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>> 
>>> 2) In any event, when I call the endpoint like:
>>> curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes 
>>>  | curl -XPOST 
>>> --data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
>>> 'http://ahost:aport/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
>>> '
>> 
>> Maybe it's email corruption but that isn't the invocation syntax.
>> 
>> That should have ?graph=
>> 
>> Otherwise it defaults to "?graph=default" which seems consistent with the 
>> report.
>> 
>> "?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 " is going 
>> to be ignored and for you that's the union default graph.
> 
> I’ve tried adding query= parameter and it doesn’t make any difference:
> 
> curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes 
>  | curl -XPOST 
> --data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
> 'http://host:port/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?query=http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707 
> '
> 
> I get the same results as I reported. When using PersonShapes I see:
> 
> [ ash:ValidationReport ;
>   sh:conforms  false ;
>   sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
>  sh:focusNode  bdr:UNKNOWN_Person ;
>  sh:resultMessage  "minCount[1]: Invalid 
> cardinality: expected min 1: Got count = 0" ;
>  sh:resultPath bdo:personName ;
>  sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
>  sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:MinCountConstraintComponent 
> ;
>  sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-personName
>]
> ] .
> 
> Regardless of whether a Person graph (P707), Work graph (W1FPL1), or no graph 
> (NO_GRAPH) is used.
> 
> When using WorkShapes everything reports sh:conforms true ;.
> 
> I have written small test cases using the jena-shacl libs that fetch the 
> above shapes and target graphs and they produce expected validation results. 
> 
> To fully conform some elements of the dataset union graph are needed which is 
> why I’m investigating the shacl endpoint as a way of performing validation of 
>  single graph in the context of the entire dataset.
> 
> 
>>> Is there any way to tell whether the shapes graph in some sense doesn’t 
>>> apply to the data graph? This seems like an important distinction.
>> 
>> You can add a constraint that is always triggered.
>> 
>> [] sh:targetNode ex:myNode
>> 
>> is always triggered; it does not require ex:myNode to be in the data.
>> 
>> From there, a SPARQL constraint could do any validations for "right graph", 
>> "empty graph" etc.
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. I’ll explore this idea once I get more understanding.
> 
> Also, what is the relationship of jena-shacl to TopBraid SHACL API 
> ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 
> 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hi Andy,

> On May 10, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> On 08/05/2020 21:34, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
> 
>> 2) In any event, when I call the endpoint like:
>> curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes | curl -XPOST 
>> --data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
>> 'http://ahost:aport/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707'
> 
> Maybe it's email corruption but that isn't the invocation syntax.
> 
> That should have ?graph=
> 
> Otherwise it defaults to "?graph=default" which seems consistent with the 
> report.
> 
> "?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707; is going to be ignored and for you that's 
> the union default graph.

I’ve tried adding query= parameter and it doesn’t make any difference:

curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes | curl -XPOST 
--data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
'http://host:port/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?query=http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707'

I get the same results as I reported. When using PersonShapes I see:

[ ash:ValidationReport ;
  sh:conforms  false ;
  sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
 sh:focusNode  bdr:UNKNOWN_Person ;
 sh:resultMessage  "minCount[1]: Invalid 
cardinality: expected min 1: Got count = 0" ;
 sh:resultPath bdo:personName ;
 sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
 sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:MinCountConstraintComponent ;
 sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-personName
   ]
] .

Regardless of whether a Person graph (P707), Work graph (W1FPL1), or no graph 
(NO_GRAPH) is used.

When using WorkShapes everything reports sh:conforms true ;.

I have written small test cases using the jena-shacl libs that fetch the above 
shapes and target graphs and they produce expected validation results. 

To fully conform some elements of the dataset union graph are needed which is 
why I’m investigating the shacl endpoint as a way of performing validation of  
single graph in the context of the entire dataset.


>> Is there any way to tell whether the shapes graph in some sense doesn’t 
>> apply to the data graph? This seems like an important distinction.
> 
> You can add a constraint that is always triggered.
> 
> [] sh:targetNode ex:myNode
> 
> is always triggered; it does not require ex:myNode to be in the data.
> 
> From there, a SPARQL constraint could do any validations for "right graph", 
> "empty graph" etc.

Thanks for the pointer. I’ll explore this idea once I get more understanding.

Also, what is the relationship of jena-shacl to TopBraid SHACL API 
?

Thanks,
Chris

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the reply. I'll try again tomorrow with the clarification regarding 
?graph= which is in the doc but not the examples and I didn't read the doc 
above the examples closely.

Chris

> On May 10, 2020, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 08/05/2020 21:34, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I’ve enabled a shacl endpoint as described in Apache Jena Shacl 
>>  and have some questions.
>> Our objective in using the endpoint is to be able to validate a given 
>> resource graph in the tdb:unionDefaultGraph against a given shapes graph.
>> 1) I added:
>> fuseki:endpoint  [ fuseki:operation fuseki:shacl ; fuseki:name "shacl" ] 
>> ;
>> to the Fuseki assembler file for a dataset and restarted, and it is 
>> reachable.
>> One observation is that using the above “new style” endpoint declaration 
>> apparently can be replaced by:
>> fuseki:serviceShacl  "shacl" ;
>> I’m not sure about this but the comment in the doc:
>>> This is not installed into a dataset setup by default; a configuration file 
>>> using fuseki:serviceShacl is necessary
>> seems to suggest it sort of.
> 
> That wasn't intended - I'll fix the documentation.
> 
> The limitation is that fuseki:serviceQuery etc require fixed names to known 
> to the configuration engine which is in fuseki-core.
> 
> Extension operations (new operations can be added to Fuseki) use the new 
> style where the predicate is fuseki:operation. In fact, for SHACL, it can be 
> added quite simply because it comes from Jena itself but the code seems to 
> say that the old-style isn't enabled.
> 
> 
>> 2) In any event, when I call the endpoint like:
>> curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes | curl -XPOST 
>> --data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
>> 'http://ahost:aport/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707'
> 
> Maybe it's email corruption but that isn't the invocation syntax.
> 
> That should have ?graph=
> 
> Otherwise it defaults to "?graph=default" which seems consistent with the 
> report.
> 
> "?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707; is going to be ignored and for you that's 
> the union default graph.
> 
> 
>> I see a result like:
>> [ ash:ValidationReport ;
>>   sh:conforms  false ;
>>   sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
>>  sh:focusNode  bdr:UNKNOWN_Person ;
>>  sh:resultMessage  "minCount[1]: Invalid 
>> cardinality: expected min 1: Got count = 0" ;
>>  sh:resultPath bdo:personName ;
>>  sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
>>  sh:sourceConstraintComponent  
>> sh:MinCountConstraintComponent ;
>>  sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-personName
>>]
>> ] .
>> which is surprising given that there’s no reference in the graph 
>> http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707   that refers 
>> eventually to bdr:UNKNOWN_Person. The P707 graph is a Person graph. I’ve 
>> also tried using an encoded url, http%3a%2f%2fpurl.bdrc.io%2fgraph%2fP707, 
>> but that makes no difference.
>> In fact, using a non-Person graph like http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/W12827 
>>  produces the same result. As does, 
>> submitting a non-existent graph URL like http://no.such.org/flip/flop 
>> .
> 
> See above.
> 
>> This all leads me to conclude that SHACL-Validation#L61 
>> 
>>  isn’t getting in a way that I understand.
>> I haven’t found any logging that gives any helpful entries and so I’m asking 
>> questions rather than diving deeper for now.
>> If I use another shape graph like 
>> http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/WorkShapes 
>> , then I get a result like:
>> [ ash:ValidationReport ;
>>   sh:conforms  true
>> ] .
>> again regardless of the graph argument.
>> I don’t understand the results.
>> 3) This result leads to a related question. It seems that a result of:
>> sh:conforms  true
>> means that the data graph conforms to the shapes graph in all respects where 
>> the shapes graph picks out features in the data graph, even if the shapes 
>> graph picks out nothing at all in the data graph.
> 
> Yes - that a SHACL-ism.
> 
> An empty graph or graph with no targets is "conforms true".
> 
>> Is there any way to tell whether the shapes graph in some sense doesn’t 
>> apply to the data graph? This seems like an important distinction.
> 
> You can add a constraint that is always triggered.
> 
> [] sh:targetNode ex:myNode
> 
> is always triggered; it does not require ex:myNode to be in the data.
> 
> From there, a SPARQL 

Re: SHACL Endpoint questions

[Andy Seaborne]

On 08/05/2020 21:34, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hello,

I’ve enabled a shacl endpoint as described in Apache Jena Shacl 
 and have some questions.

Our objective in using the endpoint is to be able to validate a given resource 
graph in the tdb:unionDefaultGraph against a given shapes graph.

1) I added:

 fuseki:endpoint  [ fuseki:operation fuseki:shacl ; fuseki:name "shacl" ] ;

to the Fuseki assembler file for a dataset and restarted, and it is reachable.

One observation is that using the above “new style” endpoint declaration 
apparently can be replaced by:

 fuseki:serviceShacl  "shacl" ;

I’m not sure about this but the comment in the doc:


This is not installed into a dataset setup by default; a configuration file 
using fuseki:serviceShacl is necessary


seems to suggest it sort of.


That wasn't intended - I'll fix the documentation.

The limitation is that fuseki:serviceQuery etc require fixed names to 
known to the configuration engine which is in fuseki-core.


Extension operations (new operations can be added to Fuseki) use the new 
style where the predicate is fuseki:operation. In fact, for SHACL, it 
can be added quite simply because it comes from Jena itself but the code 
seems to say that the old-style isn't enabled.





2) In any event, when I call the endpoint like:

curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes | curl -XPOST 
--data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
'http://ahost:aport/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707'



Maybe it's email corruption but that isn't the invocation syntax.

That should have ?graph=

Otherwise it defaults to "?graph=default" which seems consistent with 
the report.


"?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707; is going to be ignored and for you 
that's the union default graph.




I see a result like:

[ ash:ValidationReport ;
   sh:conforms  false ;
   sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
  sh:focusNode  bdr:UNKNOWN_Person ;
  sh:resultMessage  "minCount[1]: Invalid cardinality: 
expected min 1: Got count = 0" ;
  sh:resultPath bdo:personName ;
  sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
  sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:MinCountConstraintComponent ;
  sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-personName
]
] .

which is surprising given that there’s no reference in the graph 
http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707   that refers 
eventually to bdr:UNKNOWN_Person. The P707 graph is a Person graph. I’ve also tried 
using an encoded url, http%3a%2f%2fpurl.bdrc.io%2fgraph%2fP707, but that makes no 
difference.

In fact, using a non-Person graph like http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/W12827 
 produces the same result. As does, submitting a 
non-existent graph URL like http://no.such.org/flip/flop 
.


See above.



This all leads me to conclude that SHACL-Validation#L61 

 isn’t getting in a way that I understand.

I haven’t found any logging that gives any helpful entries and so I’m asking 
questions rather than diving deeper for now.

If I use another shape graph like http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/WorkShapes 
, then I get a result like:

[ ash:ValidationReport ;
   sh:conforms  true
] .

again regardless of the graph argument.

I don’t understand the results.

3) This result leads to a related question. It seems that a result of:

 sh:conforms  true

means that the data graph conforms to the shapes graph in all respects where 
the shapes graph picks out features in the data graph, even if the shapes graph 
picks out nothing at all in the data graph.


Yes - that a SHACL-ism.

An empty graph or graph with no targets is "conforms true".



Is there any way to tell whether the shapes graph in some sense doesn’t apply 
to the data graph? This seems like an important distinction.


You can add a constraint that is always triggered.

[] sh:targetNode ex:myNode

is always triggered; it does not require ex:myNode to be in the data.

From there, a SPARQL constraint could do any validations for "right 
graph", "empty graph" etc.




I appreciate any help on these questions,
Chris


Andy

SHACL Endpoint questions

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hello,

I’ve enabled a shacl endpoint as described in Apache Jena Shacl 
 and have some questions.

Our objective in using the endpoint is to be able to validate a given resource 
graph in the tdb:unionDefaultGraph against a given shapes graph.

1) I added:

fuseki:endpoint  [ fuseki:operation fuseki:shacl ; fuseki:name "shacl" ] ;

to the Fuseki assembler file for a dataset and restarted, and it is reachable. 

One observation is that using the above “new style” endpoint declaration 
apparently can be replaced by:

fuseki:serviceShacl  "shacl" ;

I’m not sure about this but the comment in the doc:

> This is not installed into a dataset setup by default; a configuration file 
> using fuseki:serviceShacl is necessary

seems to suggest it sort of.

2) In any event, when I call the endpoint like:

curl -s GET http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/PersonShapes | curl -XPOST 
--data-binary @-  --header 'Content-type: text/turtle' 
'http://ahost:aport/fuseki/newcorerw/shacl?http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707'

I see a result like:

[ ash:ValidationReport ;
  sh:conforms  false ;
  sh:result[ a sh:ValidationResult ;
 sh:focusNode  bdr:UNKNOWN_Person ;
 sh:resultMessage  "minCount[1]: Invalid 
cardinality: expected min 1: Got count = 0" ;
 sh:resultPath bdo:personName ;
 sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
 sh:sourceConstraintComponent  sh:MinCountConstraintComponent ;
 sh:sourceShapebds:PersonShape-personName
   ]
] .

which is surprising given that there’s no reference in the graph 
http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/P707   that refers 
eventually to bdr:UNKNOWN_Person. The P707 graph is a Person graph. I’ve also 
tried using an encoded url, http%3a%2f%2fpurl.bdrc.io%2fgraph%2fP707, but that 
makes no difference.

In fact, using a non-Person graph like http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/W12827 
 produces the same result. As does, 
submitting a non-existent graph URL like http://no.such.org/flip/flop 
.

This all leads me to conclude that SHACL-Validation#L61 

 isn’t getting in a way that I understand. 

I haven’t found any logging that gives any helpful entries and so I’m asking 
questions rather than diving deeper for now.

If I use another shape graph like 
http://ldspdi-dev.bdrc.io/shapes/core/WorkShapes 
, then I get a result like:

[ ash:ValidationReport ;
  sh:conforms  true
] .

again regardless of the graph argument.

I don’t understand the results.

3) This result leads to a related question. It seems that a result of:

sh:conforms  true

means that the data graph conforms to the shapes graph in all respects where 
the shapes graph picks out features in the data graph, even if the shapes graph 
picks out nothing at all in the data graph.

Is there any way to tell whether the shapes graph in some sense doesn’t apply 
to the data graph? This seems like an important distinction.

I appreciate any help on these questions,
Chris