Left out a detail- an ideal solution would also avoid sh:node such that errors in validation reports would be informative instead of sh:node's uninformative "does not conform to shape" message.
Thanks for any help! On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 8:07:44 PM UTC-5 Matt Goldberg wrote: > Hello- > > I've experimented with the Custom Targets and Custom Target Types and I > can't seem to find a reasonable way to define targets in a particular way. > What I'd like to do is have the focus nodes specified by resources > themselves via a property that points to the shape to use, effectively how > rdf:type does for implicit shapes, but by using a specified term in the > domain ontology instead of rdf:type. In other words, I'd like to specify > that the focus nodes for some node shape S are the subjects of triples with > predicate P and object S, where P is specified and is not necessarily > rdf:type. > > sh:targetSubjectsOf and sh:targetObjectsOf do not provide this > functionality, as they only look at the predicate. I don't think > $currentShape is pre-bound for custom target types like for constraint > components (at least my experiments didn't seem to work), but even if it > is, it would likely be an optional feature as is stated in the > specification. An ideal solution would be something that would not use any > TopBraid specific features, as we are using SHACL in other systems as well. > > Thanks for any help! > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/4cc9fc07-6309-4c53-aaee-7073dd62ac2cn%40googlegroups.com.
