- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:12:43 -0700
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
The proposal appears to be to add some other information to validation result identifying the SHACL syntactic construct that was violated. So if the shape is something like sx:s1 sh:scopeClass ex:c1 ; sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:foo ; sh:minCount 2 ] . and the data is something like ex:i1 rdf:type ex:c1 ; ex:foo ex:v1 . then the validation result would be something like [ rdf:type sh:ValidationResult ; sh:severity sh:Violation ; sh:focusNode ex:i1 ; sh:focusNode ex:i1 ; sh:predicate ex:foo ; sh:xxxx sh:minCount ] . The claim is that this helps users and verification tests by identifying what happened. However, this information alone does not solve either case. Consider a shape that has two property constraints on the same property, both with sh:minCount values. No help here either for users or for validation. sh:message can already be used for this purpose. It does not identify which part of a property constraint was violated but if anyone cares the property constraint can be split up into several property constraints, each which a different message. (This does demonstrate, however, another issue with omnibus property constraints.) So, I don't see any advantage of adding this extra information to validation results. peter
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 17:13:16 UTC