That is what I am saying. The validation example is reporting violations on classes (focus nodes are all classes) while TBC is reporting violations on instances. I am trying to reproduce the results that TBC shows.
Jack Sent from my iPad > On Aug 9, 2016, at 6:17 PM, Holger Knublauch <hol...@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/08/2016 2:51, Jack Hodges wrote: >> I need SPIN because my SHACL sh:constraint sh:sparql SPARQL query calls SPIN >> functions (some stock and some custom). > > The SPIN functions can be registered with the SPARQL engine separately and do > not need to be in the same graph as the SHACL data. The two worlds interact > only via the ARQ SPARQL engine's functions registry. > >> >> I flattened as suggested into a single turtle file. >> >> I had some test values in the schema so I piped the schema back in as the >> test data and got some results (yay!). >> >> Now the issue is that the results don't match what I am seeing in the TBC >> SHACL Validation tab. In TBC the SHACL Validation tab shows: Shape, >> Constraint, Message, Focus Node, Subject, Predicate, and Object. The Shape >> data is similar to the result in the test case, but none of the other SHACL >> property values are the same, most notably the Message and Focus Node >> values. In TBC the Focus Node (which seems to be the same as sh:subject) is >> bound to instances, and the Message (sh:message) value is bound to the >> message I defined and bound to the values my SPARQL query returns. And >> example of the results I am seeing from the test case is: >> >> [ a sh:ValidationResult ; >> sh:focusNode eddl:BlockB ; >> sh:message "Value does not have class >> sh:PropertyConstraint" ; >> sh:path sh:property ; >> sh:severity sh:Violation ; >> sh:sourceConstraint _:b0 ; >> sh:sourceConstraintComponent sh:ClassConstraintComponent ; >> sh:sourceShape sh:Shape ; >> sh:value [] >> ] . >> >> So now I am thinking that maybe I am using the wrong validator. Is it >> possible that I should be using the ResourceConstraintValidator instead of >> the ModelConstraintValidator? And if so, it takes a resource as the first >> argument unlike TBC which traverses the current graph. > > So are you saying the result instances are different, i.e. they report > different violations? Or is just the format (e.g. sh:focusNode vs. > sh:subject) different? The latter is easy to explain: the SHACL API is ahead > of the TBC release cycle, and only the API follows the very latest syntax > changes to SHACL. > > Holger > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group > "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include the TopBraid Suite family > of products and its base technologies such as SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages > and SPIN. > To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@googlegroups.com > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/topbraid-users/4suqs8RewM0/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include the TopBraid Suite family of products and its base technologies such as SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to topbraid-users@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
