Re: ISSUE-51: Generalized sh:severity

(Apologies for another update on this topic)

I have meanwhile also updated the shacl-ref file, and did minor clean up 
that is hopefully considered editorial:

- The property sh:root (meant to point at the focus node) is now called 
- The property sh:source (meant to point at the constraint that caused 
the violation) is now called sh:sourceConstraint
- Added sh:sourceShape to also point at the sh:Shape that was evaluated

Let me know if you have questions or concerns about these changes.


On 8/7/2015 9:24, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> In the call today, I was asked to clarify how the severity of 
> constraint violations can be specified. Several WG members also voiced 
> their support for being able to specify the severity for each 
> occurrence of a template, which was not supported until today.
> Based on this preference, I have made a small generalization to the 
> handling of sh:severity and will describe how it works below. I have 
> made this change directly on our master copy as it seems a fairly 
> straight-forward and hopefully uncontroversial change. I am holding 
> off with the other changes until we had another meeting about this.
> To get started, please read the new paragraph
> especially Example 31 (Declaring the Severity using sh:severity)
> This shows that there is now a way to specify the severity for each 
> property occurrence (hopefully addressing Eric's point today). Each of 
> these is a template call, instantiating sh:PropertyConstraint. I have 
> moved the property sh:severity into the sh:Constraint class, which is 
> a superclass of sh:PropertyConstraint. If left unspecified, it will 
> use the severity declared at the template itself (i.e. with 
> sh:AbstractCountPropertyConstraint as its subject). If even this is 
> left unspecified, then it will apply sh:Error as a default.
> For native constraints (in SPARQL) the situation is unchanged, e.g.
> ex:MyShape
>     a sh:Shape ;
>     sh:constraint [
>         sh:sparql "..." ;
>         sh:severity sh:Warning ;
>     ] .
> will always produce a warning.
> I have also updated the Turtle file and changed the prose in each 
> textual definition to say "violation" instead of "sh:Error". I did not 
> yet update the shacl-ref file.
> I would appreciate a second pair of eyes to verify that I didn't miss 
> anything in this refactoring.
> Regards,
> Holger

Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 01:22:41 UTC