Re: Updated proposal to close ISSUE-51 based on Turtle file in ISSUE-51 branch

Severities appear to be both symbolic (sh:Info, sh:Warning, ...)  and
numeric (sh:severityIndex).  Do both matter?  Can there be two severities
with the same sh:severityIndex?

Failures cover both control issues, e.g., illegal syntax, and logical
issues, e.g., recursive loops.  (This is assuming that (negative) recursion
is syntactically valid but that encountering a recursive loop produces a
failure.)  I think that these two need to be separated.

Results cover both failures and violations, and more.  All results are
reported by constructing an RDF graph containing information about results.
I think that constructing an RDF graph is too heavy-weight for reporting
results.

I think that a simpler approach is called for.  If there needs to be complex
processing then it is better to do that outside of SHACL.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 08/03/2015 05:51 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Here is a link to the (roughly 200 highlighted) lines that matter:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-51/shacl/shacl.shacl.ttl#L321-L517
> 
> This will hopefully make reading more manageable. All URIs have rdfs:comments
> attached to them.
> 
> On 8/4/15 10:29 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> This resolution points to a document with 1966 lines.  The summary is lacking
>> details.
>>
>> Please provide the relevant definitions so that I can determine what is going
>> on.
>>
>> In particular, it appears that failure results encompass both non-logical
>> (communications) issues and logical (recursion) issues.  I don't see why
>> recursion issues are not a kind of validation failure.
> 
> See my parallel thread on ISSUE-76, where I asked whether recursion errors may
> even just be "False" results. This is probably a separate topic altogether.
> 
> I am not sure how other WGs solve such a situation in which we need to start
> making partial changes without changing everything at once. The changes here
> are obviously just an intermediate step. But whether recursion errors are
> later moved into validation failures is something we can change at a later
> time - it would be a matter of changing their rdf:type from sh:Failure to
> sh:Severity.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> On 08/03/2015 05:18 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Dimitris and I had some detailed discussions about ISSUE-51 and I believe we
>>> have largely agreed on a revised design that I would like to propose to the
>>> group:
>>>
>>> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-51 based on the design outlined in the Turtle file
>>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-51/shacl/shacl.shacl.ttl
>>>
>>> Note that I did *not* yet update the textual companion documents because this
>>> would be quite some work that I'd rather delay until we have a general
>>> agreement.
>>>
>>> Summary of changes:
>>>
>>> There are now three kinds of results:
>>> - ValidationResults point at a severity level such as Warning and Error and
>>> provide additional details about which triples were causing the violation
>>> - FailureResults are unexpected situations such as unsupported recursion or
>>> communication problems with a database ("sorry we could not process your
>>> request")
>>> - SuccessResults can be used to capture successful runs, for logging purposes
>>>
>>> It is easy to add new types of severity levels (which also carry an index so
>>> that they can be ordered), and failure types. The design also makes it easy to
>>> repurpose the severity levels for additional use cases such as accumulated
>>> results.
>>>
>>> There were also various renamings and other minor clean ups. Nothing changes
>>> for the syntax of the SELECT queries.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 16:52:31 UTC