I'm not understanding something about validating SHACL files. Normally I successfully use shapes and SPARQLConstraints to validate rdf instance files, but I'd also like to apply some constraints to our SHACL shape definitions themselves.
For example, I'd like to ensure all our declared classes/Nodeshapes have an rdfs:label, so I wrote: owl:Class sh:property [ sh:path rdfs:label ; sh:minCount 1 ; ] ; . I also tried 1. Writing a SPARQLConstraint to do the same thing. 2. Using the sh:targetClass method with an explicitly named shape. 3. Using these with sh:NodeShape instead of owl:Class, since all my classes are also instances of sh:NodeShape. None produced any validation errors when I ran the TBC validator on a shapes file containing the definition of a class where I intentionally omitted an rdfs:label value. I know that the SHACL spec even has the shsh:ShapeShape specification, so I assume this kind of thing can be done. Is something blocking the validation error from showing up? Is it because rdfs:label is an annotation property? Steve -- 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/CAGUep87sNoHp7PQaJq9bVsODsOL7OY1Q-%2B9LBDooJtC1tBWBCQ%40mail.gmail.com.
