Re: ISSUE-51: Generalized sh:severity

(moving my comments to this thread)

I'm a bit uneasy about the fact that the validation vocabulary returns 
only "negative" results (e.g. violations). Presumably that means that no 
result = true/aok. Would it be possible to return a positive value for 
"true"? I am concerned that a lack of result could be an indication of a 
bug, and therefore the return of no result would mask that.


On 8/6/15 4:24 PM, 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

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2015 22:58:07 UTC