Re: ISSUE-51: Generalized sh:severity


> 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.

I'm not sure what kind of "bug" you mean.
1) a bug in terms of an incorrect shape definition (wrt. the official 
SHACL syntax)
2) a bug in terms of an insufficient shape definition (e.g. sh:maxCount 
restriction is missing causing the validation not to fail although it 

Either way, 1) should be caught by the respective validation engine that 
implements SHACL and regarding 2) it wouldn't make any difference if the 
engine returns true instead of nothing (imho). In both cases I only know 
that no SHACL constraint failed, thus all individuals conform to their 
respective shapes.


DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www:  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2015-08-26 00:57, schrieb Karen Coyle:
> (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.
> kc
> 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

Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 05:30:19 UTC