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

Re: [SHACL Feedback] Vocabulary for Constraint Violations / security levels

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:50:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a0QffS1Q9e1D5Hk5XYVZ57FZ12zuBPBH8okrh01OcTMBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Holger

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> On 3/2/2015 0:12, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
>> 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
>> RDFunit.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> Thanks, I have recorded a link to your suggestion into the current draft
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/
> 2015Mar/0011.html
>
> This topic, as well as other details, will certainly keep us busy for the
> rest of the year.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You may want to turn this question into one or more Requirements before
> they get frozen.
>

I can do that as long people find it useful, would anyone like this idea? I
could also back it up with a user story if needed.


> Thanks,
> Holger
>
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 06:51:31 UTC

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