W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [SHAQL Feedback] SPARQL & definition/result coupling

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:20:27 +1000
Message-ID: <54F044EB.1010005@topquadrant.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

On 2/27/15 6:13 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Hi Holger, all
> First of all I think the spec is going to a good direction, it needs 
> some work to be coherent but this was expected for such a limited time.
> As you suggested I summarize and continue our offline discussion in 
> the mailing list for public review.
> I also want the SPARQL expressiveness in the spec but IMHO if we keep 
> it uncontrolled it can be messy.
> My (revised based on your comments) suggestion is to allow *only* 
> SELECT queries where the select variables are limited to the ones 
> defined in the end of section 15.1.3 [1] (?root/?this, ?level, 
> ?message, ?predicate, ?value) or any other variable is explicitly 
> defined in the spec . An additional requirement is that the variable 
> ?root (or ?this on focus node queries) is required and the query is 
> marked as invalid if it does not exist.
> Depending on what results the user wants to get the SHAQL engine can 
> convert this query to
> - ASK -> true / false
> - SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT ?root) -> violation counts
> - SELECT DISTINCT ?root -> get erroneous nodes
> - SELECT DISTINCT ?root ?label [...] -> nodes with additional metadata
> - CONSTRUCT { ... } -> custom
> and then programatically create the results.
> If people want additional metadata they can be easily added with 
> shapes annotations. This is something that is already working well in 
> RDFUnit [2] and could be adapted for SHAQL.
> The reason why we *should not* allow CONSTRUCT queries is the very 
> strong coupling of constraint definition with validation results.
> At first, construct queries cannot easily be transformed to all the 
> above forms and we limit SHAQL reporting expressiveness.
> But, the most important part is that we hardcode the results in the 
> shape and this provides very little flexibility on the result 
> representation and hard to change when/if the spec changes.
> In addition construct queries limit the results to blank nodes that 
> some people don't like.
> Finally, when there are multiple violation values (sh:value) CONSTRUCT 
> creates a separate violation for each value whereas in RDFUnit I use a
> - SELECT ?root ?value {...} ORDER BY ?root
> and manually place all values (or any other defined annotations) in 
> the same violation
> I would also discourage the use of ASK queries to make the spec 
> shorter and more consistent. People can easily write a SELECT 
> ?root/?this instead with all the expressive benefits this brings.

Thanks, I am always in favor of simplifications. I believe I agree that 
ASK should be deleted - now that we have SELECT (which did not exist in 
the original SPIN spec). ASK was confusing to many people because it 
wasn't intuitive that they had to return false to indicate OK. With 
SELECT it will be clearer that the result set rows are becoming 
violation reports.

On the other aspects, I need to play with how this would look and work 
in detail before I can respond. My current intuition tells me that we 
are losing some other flexibility if we drop CONSTRUCT support, e.g. the 
ability to return additional information such as custom properties of 
constraint violations and greater ease of constructing path structures 
as objects.

BTW it is not correct that CONSTRUCT would be limited to blank nodes, 
you can have something like BIND(UUID() AS ?error) in the WHERE clause 
and then use that new variable.

Many thanks, let's stay in touch on this matter
Received on Friday, 27 February 2015 10:21:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:14 UTC