Skip to content
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

Validator for schema #294

Open
torhaugl opened this issue Jan 7, 2025 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #296
Open

Validator for schema #294

torhaugl opened this issue Jan 7, 2025 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #296

Comments

@torhaugl
Copy link
Contributor

torhaugl commented Jan 7, 2025

Use some validator can be used for both DCAT-AP-NO and our custom schema to ensure data is schema-compliant.

This is to ensure that "illegal" datasets are not uploaded.

@torhaugl torhaugl added this to the Ready for data documentation milestone Jan 7, 2025
@jesper-friis jesper-friis linked a pull request Jan 7, 2025 that will close this issue
10 tasks
@jesper-friis
Copy link
Contributor

jesper-friis commented Jan 7, 2025

Added some domain-specific contexts and requirements files in PR #296

The idea is that the validator uses the requirements.yaml files when validating a schema. This way the the requirements become declarative and separated from the logics.

The format of the requirements.yaml file can be discussed.

We should also have a context validator that ensures that a keyword only is defined once. This should probably be a separate issue.

@torhaugl
Copy link
Contributor Author

torhaugl commented Jan 9, 2025

Should we write schema as a SHACL? There exists validators for this

@torhaugl
Copy link
Contributor Author

torhaugl commented Jan 14, 2025

Validators for DCAT-AP and DCAT-AP-NO exists. These are both based on SHACL. Are these a good starting point?

Btw, the DCAT-AP-NO one is out-of-date.

@terence-coudert
Copy link
Collaborator

terence-coudert commented Jan 22, 2025

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants