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

[SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <jimkont@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 16:12:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a2wV11_aVJ4iiEK_aS_JbQ8fW8M_iiu_K9DpTjr9KhDKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Dear all,

I provide a more structured proposal for handling security levels that was
discussed at the F2F meeting that is also (not fully) implemented in

Security levels (error, warning,...) can be attached at a sh:Shape or
sh:property, or in a shape group (if we define such a classification).
If more than one different security levels are defined in the hierarchy,
the weakest is applied in the current scope.

Execution semantics:
The overall results of a validation can be expressed with a single
true/false (valid/invalid). In case of false, the validation engine can
additionally provide a security level that is the strongest level of all
failed violation.
This comes in addition to other detailed violation messages we may provide

Users can optionally execute a validation requiring the reporting of a
minimum security level (i.e. Error). In that case the execution engine will
skip the execution of all shapes or shape properties that have a weaker
security level than the one requested at the execution time

Other comments for the result vocabulary
Would we like to enrich the existing vocabulary with additional provenance
metadata? Example data that are currently stored in RDFUnit are: start/end
timestamps, execution statistics (tests run, failed, violation instances),
dataset URI and list of tests (shapes) taking part in the validation.


Kontokostas Dimitris
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 14:12:49 UTC

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