Re: [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels

On 3/2/2015 0:12, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I provide a more structured proposal for handling security levels that 
> was discussed at the F2F meeting that is also (not fully) implemented 
> in RDFunit.
>
> Security levels (error, warning,...) can be attached at a sh:Shape or 
> sh:property, or in a shape group (if we define such a classification).
> If more than one different security levels are defined in the 
> hierarchy, the weakest is applied in the current scope.
>
> Execution semantics:
> The overall results of a validation can be expressed with a single 
> true/false (valid/invalid). In case of false, the validation engine 
> can additionally provide a security level that is the strongest level 
> of all failed violation.
> This comes in addition to other detailed violation messages we may provide
>
> Users can optionally execute a validation requiring the reporting of a 
> minimum security level (i.e. Error). In that case the execution engine 
> will skip the execution of all shapes or shape properties that have a 
> weaker security level than the one requested at the execution time

Thanks, I have recorded a link to your suggestion into the current draft

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0011.html

This topic, as well as other details, will certainly keep us busy for 
the rest of the year.

>
> Other comments for the result vocabulary
> Would we like to enrich the existing vocabulary with additional 
> provenance metadata? Example data that are currently stored in RDFUnit 
> are: start/end timestamps, execution statistics (tests run, failed, 
> violation instances), dataset URI and list of tests (shapes) taking 
> part in the validation.

You may want to turn this question into one or more Requirements before 
they get frozen.

Thanks,
Holger

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 23:42:06 UTC