#288: Added sh:SelectExpression, with test cases and TTL changes

[HolgerKnublauch]

No description provided.

[ajnelson-nist]

@HolgerKnublauch - I added an update to SHACL-SHACL. It seems one update should have gone in for #274 : If sh:targetNode can now allow blank nodes in their object position, then it seems there's currently no sh:PropertyShape necessary because there's no constraint to specify. Does this need to be broken out into a separate PR, possibly also to address any updates to targetNode-nodeKind text?

[bergos]

LGTM, as mentioned in #301, we may need to revisit the sh:path property. But that should be done in a separate PR.

[ajnelson-nist]

Oh dear. For awareness, there is a comment thread tied to just the last commit, here, documenting that I'm going to undo the SHACL-SHACL changes and move them to another PR. It's not displaying in this PR page. Sorry @bergos , you'll need to re-review.

[ajnelson-nist]

Ok, the updates to SHACL-SHACL I had here are now moved out-of-band to #302 .

[TallTed]

typo

[HolgerKnublauch]

@TallTed could you kindly recheck whether you can unblock this PR? Thanks.

[afs]

This looks good for a FPWD.
I can't check the test case (no code).
There details recorded elsewhere for the example using sh:path.

[HolgerKnublauch]

@TallTed this PR is still blocked because you have requested changes. As I have long applied your suggestion, I believe you still need to change the status of your review away from Request Changes.

(I don't think simple change requests such as typo fixes should ever block progress)

[caribouW3]

@TallTed this PR is still blocked because you have requested changes. As I have long applied your suggestion, I believe you still need to change the status of your review away from Request Changes.

(I don't think simple change requests such as typo fixes should ever block progress)

Since that request has been already accepted, I'll dismiss the review comment to unlock merging.

Proposed changed has been accepted already.

[HolgerKnublauch]

Thanks a lot, @caribouW3. I am going to merge this PR into the main branch now because it has sufficient approvals and has been widely agreed to be done by the group when #222 was accepted. The Core spec even contains a reference to this already, so it's best to get this consistent now. Also, there are follow-up branches based on this already piling up.