Re: on validation reports

Holger,

I believe Peter said that this was an observation and it is up to the working group to decide what to do with it. Say that yes, it is correct and it is a feature, explain that it is wrong or make it into an issue. If this observation is about something that is a feature, then I think you just explained it.

I still think it would be very useful to everyone if commenters submitted clear comments that are easy to understand. A question is usually more straight forward because people are submitting it in a form of a question, but, for example, how would one to know if some RDF snippets represent an observation or an issue and what exactly they observe or take issue with? Besides, if a commenter's goal is to receive an informative response, it is not in their interest to submit enigmatic comments. Such things will often be misunderstood and result in ineffective exchange.

Irene

> On Dec 8, 2016, at 7:40 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> 
> On 9/12/2016 3:59, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> If I was creating an issue related to this observation I would create one like
>> this:
>> 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.
> 
> We had intentionally designed this for flexibility, even included an "abstract" superclass for all validation results, encouraging people to create different kinds. This may include subclasses of sh:ValidationResult. So I would consider the current design a feature.
> 
> On the process question, we could indeed now make this a formal ISSUE, present it to the WG and spend meeting cycles on this. From your time in the WG you do remember how precious that weekly meeting time is, and that on many topics very little progress is made by emails alone. I am sure you are also aware that the WG will be ending in the middle of next year, and we need to go through various phases to fulfill our formal reviewing obligations. It is now unclear to me how we can structure the process so that we can realistically achieve the charter, but I guess we'll know more next week. Until then my apologies if I am not yet turning your comment into a formal issue. Please hold the line.
> 
> Thanks,
> Holger
> 
>

Received on Friday, 9 December 2016 01:31:51 UTC