- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:00:41 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/05/2015 06:42 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 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. That's only for native constraints, as far as I can see. There is no requirement that all constraints use this, and certainly no requirement that the high-level constraints do. >> 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 Even so, sh:message can be used to distinguish between different constraints. > Holger
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 18:01:12 UTC