Re: Proposed requirement: 2.10.4 Constraint Violations Reporting Details

Hi Dimitris,

I’m not sure I understand what requirement you’re proposing.

Are you proposing that SHACL should not include detailed violation reporting facilities, because there could be too many reports?

Counting violations seems like something that implementations can do no matter how SHACL is designed, so doesn’t appear to give rise to any particular requirement for the language itself?

Richard




> On 26 Feb 2015, at 14:30, Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I proposed the following requirement that derived from UC34
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Constraint_Violations_Reporting_Details
> 
> In large databases (such as DBpedia) there can be many thousands of violations and getting the detailed nodes that failed is not practical. 
> In these cases, getting the number of violations per shape / shape facet is more suited. Most of the times all the violations of a shape facet can be amended with a single code/mapping fix
> 
> In the following example we had ~1M violations related to geo from four constraints & another ~1M violations for images that both got fixed with a single commit in the code
> 
> http://nl.dbpedia.org/downloads/rdfunit/20141210/
> *.aggregated* groups constraints with error counts & prevalence
> *.rlog* displays only 10 violation nodes per constraint
> 
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2015 18:10:08 UTC