-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
which SHACL validators to try? #95
Comments
I agree on the requirement. First of all, we would like to have the UML/information model so that we really only need UML restriction. However, the world is more complicated. To avoid to have very technical UML/information model we will use a logical description of the constraints. This does not really need to be processes as is, but can be converted to relevant execution. This should be the primary motivation for not including SPARQL. Secondary is that we want to have engines that is optimised to execute well known constraints pattern. |
I have some suggestion from Erik for benchmarks in SHACL/SPARQL validator. https://github.com/oxigraph/oxigraph/blob/main/bench/README.md |
@HarisVranaj but do Oxigraph and QLever have SHACL implementations? |
Note to self: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/QgrcJHsTgsbXhdCJwNqzTbwQHVhdRXDHtBB asked Treehouse for access to maplib SHACL. |
When I tried pySHACL back in Jan and tried to package ModShape I has troubles. I was having performance issues. I was in touch with Nick at that time, there might be solutions, but I didn't have time to clean that up. |
@HarisVranaj Do Qlever and OxiGraph support SHACL? Please post links to documentation |
I'm also working on supporting the last of the SHACL path expressions, and this should be included in RDF4J 5.1.0 or 5.2.0: eclipse-rdf4j/rdf4j#5131 I can also advertise that the RDF4J SHACL implementation supports incremental validation. If you have a large database and want to make a small change to your data, then the RDF4J SHACL engine will analyse your changes and only validate the affected target nodes. |
@hmottestad Very good. Incremental or difference validation is extremely relevant since we have a lot of SHACL rules that goes across multiple objects. The full graph is getting very big, and the changes are very limited. We have included the possiblity to exchange differences since 2005 using CIMXML/ RDFXML. We are not looking into how we can use JSON-LD to exchange this. See #53 |
RDF4J 5 has support for JSON-LD 1.1 with a customised version of Titanium JSON-LD that is considerably faster than the stock implementation that Jena is using. I saw you were talking about DCAT, is your projected related to Datakatalogen på any chance? |
I like fast code :-) |
Reply from Erik. "They do not support it out of the box, only SPARQL, for them, SHACL needs to be translated into SPARQL |
@HarisVranaj I am not able to give access to DataTreehouse Github, if that is what you wanted. |
nono to this repository. |
The repo is public, so Erik can post and comment |
I added https://github.com/w3c-cg/awesome-semantic-shapes#readme and https://rudof-project.github.io/rudof/ to the top. |
Requirements:
SPARQLConstraint
and, or, not
sh:dataGraph
so we can validate various stored models (consider options for using SHACL on graphs #140)Let's define which validation engines to try.
We now have a pretty complete list at https://github.com/w3c-cg/awesome-semantic-shapes#readme and several contributors add to it often.
Here's a proposal:
How about:
After we agree on the list, we need to research and list the limitations of every implementation.
This may eliminate some candidates.
@HarisVranaj please attach the presentation you showed 2d ago (I hope it's not confidential).
@griddigit-ci and @Sveino please comment on the proposal above, and I'll correct the list
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: