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