Re: on validation reports

The working group should (and I think is obligated to) provide proper
responses to all comments on the comments mailing list.  The form of this
response depends on the comment, of course, as not all comments will contain
issues.

Comments can contatin praise.  Comments can contain observations.  Comments
can contain questions.  Comments can also contain issues, and there is no need
for commenters to explicitly call out these issues.

The message at the head of this message thread is an observation (or at least
what the I think is an observation) about SHACL.  The working group could
choose to just accept this observation, implicitly saying that it considers
the observation to be correct, and intended behaviour.  The working group
could dispute the observation, in which case it should provide a valid
explanation as to why the observation is not correct.  The working group could
also view the observation as evidence of a problem and open an issue for it.


If I was creating an issue related to this observation I would create one like
this:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ISSUE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The SHACL specification is much too loose in its description of validation
reports.  Conforming implementations can produce widely varying validation
reports for the same validation.  This variance imposes a much too difficult
burden on applications that process validation reports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ISSUE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications



On 12/05/2016 07:44 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> during the recent WG meeting, several people have expressed their opinion that
> if public commenters expect proper responses from the WG, then they should
> also write properly formulated issues that clearly show what problem they see.
> Otherwise we end up with longish email threads that are frustrating for
> everyone involved. From the email below it is not clear what problem you are
> reporting.
> 
> Thanks,
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 5/12/2016 6:25, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Data Graph
>>
>> @prefix ex: <http://example.org/> .
>> ex:i rdf:type ex:c ;
>>   ex:p ex:v1, ex:v2, ex:v3 .
>>
>> Shapes Graph
>>
>> @prefix ex: <http://example.org/> .
>> @prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> .
>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
>> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
>> ex:s rdf:type sh:Shape ;
>>    sh:targetClass ex:c ;
>>    sh:property [ sh:class ex:c ] .
>>
>> The graph below is an acceptable validation report for validating the above
>> data graph against the above shapes graph.
>>
>> @prefix ex: <http://example.org/> .
>> @prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> .
>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
>> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
>> ex:ValidationResult rdfs:subClassOf sh:ValidationResult ;
>> [] a [ rdfs:subClassOf sh:ValidationReport ] ;
>>    sh:conforms false ;
>>    sh:result [ a ex:ValidationResult ;
>>      sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ;
>>      sh:focusNode ex:i ;
>>      sh:resultPath ex:p ;
>>      sh:value ex:v1, ex:v2, ex:v3 ;
>>      sh:sourceConstraintComponent sh:ClassConstraintComponent ] .
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Nuance Communications
>>
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2016 18:00:10 UTC