I've been looking at implementing SHACL constraints that will warn the user if a target node has a property that does not have a corresponding SHACL rule that applies to it. To implement this, it is currently necessary to have the SHACL and data graphs be in the same Graph object so that the SHACL-SPARQL constraints can see the SHACL shapes. However, the same outcome could be achieved if it were possible to disable the splitting of Datasets into a list of named graphs, so that any SPARQL queries are run against the union of the Dataset graphs. Would such an option be possible, or would it introduce other issues?
I've been looking at implementing SHACL constraints that will warn the user if a target node has a property that does not have a corresponding SHACL rule that applies to it. To implement this, it is currently necessary to have the SHACL and data graphs be in the same Graph object so that the SHACL-SPARQL constraints can see the SHACL shapes. However, the same outcome could be achieved if it were possible to disable the splitting of Datasets into a list of named graphs, so that any SPARQL queries are run against the union of the Dataset graphs. Would such an option be possible, or would it introduce other issues?