- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:42:11 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/3/2015 3:12, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. The spec already mentions sh:sourceConstraint which points at the exact constraint (resource): http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#results-source In combination with the proposed new property this provides all information necessary to trace back the origin of a violation. > > > 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. sh:message is IMHO a weak mechanism - it may even produce a different string depending on the selected user's locale. Holger
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 01:42:44 UTC