zazuko/rdf-validate-shacl

`sh:closed` with `sh:alternativePath`

sroze opened this issue · 4 comments

sroze commented

What's the issue?
When using a closed shape and properties with an alternative path, I always get a violation because the predicate is not allowed.

What's expected?
I am expecting predicates schema:ROLE_CAREGIVER to not be violations of the closed shape.

Example SHACL

schema:User a rdfs:Class, sh:NodeShape;
    sh:closed true;
    sh:property [ sh:path rdf:type; sh:hasValue schema:User ];
    sh:property [
      sh:path [ sh:alternativePath ( schema:ROLE_CAREGIVER schema:ROLE_CAREMANAGER ) ];
      sh:node schema:CareRecipient
    ];
.

Playground example
https://s.zazuko.com/JrT3P

Is that a real bug or am I misunderstanding SHACL? Either way, would you have any direction as to which part of the code should I change and PR or how might I be able to tackle this (without redeclaring each property one by one, hopefully)? Thank you!

tpluscode commented

It appears to behave the same in the original playground, which could mean it's by-design (cc @HolgerKnublauch)

As a workaround, you can add sh:ignoredProperties to your shape

sh:ignoredProperties ( schema:ROLE_CAREGIVER schema:ROLE_CAREMANAGER ) ;
  • 👍1
HolgerKnublauch commented

Yes this is by design. sh:closed is really simplistic and only looks at the named properties that are the values of sh:path of the directly associated property shapes. See https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#ClosedConstraintComponent (which is very brief, like many specifications are). Path expressions are not evaluated.

There are other limitations of sh:closed, which is why we have added http://datashapes.org/constraints.html#ClosedByTypesConstraintComponent using SHACL-SPARQL.

sroze commented

As a workaround, you can add sh:ignoredProperties to your shape

@tpluscode this would mean that the sh:node wouldn't be validated though if I understand correctly.

There are other limitations of sh:closed, which is why we have added http://datashapes.org/constraints.html#ClosedByTypesConstraintComponent using SHACL-SPARQL.

@HolgerKnublauch Oh interesting, I didn't know. My understanding is that this isn't supported by this validator though but great to know!

tpluscode commented

@tpluscode this would mean that the sh:node wouldn't be validated though if I understand correctly.

Wasn't sure, but apparently it will: https://s.zazuko.com/25pXUe :)