Re: shapes-ISSUE-96 (Violation IDs): Should the validation results contain stable IDs to indicate the type of violation [SHACL Spec]

On 10/7/2015 9:29, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> "Anyway, this will be tested in practice in implementation(s)"
>
> I remain very skeptical about the whole idea of defining how errors 
> should be reported. I believe we should define what it takes for a 
> graph instance to be valid and leave it to the implementations to 
> decide what to do beyond reporting whether a document is valid or not.

This might sound tempting from a "getting a specification out as fast as 
possible" perspective, but I think none of this is hard to specify. If 
we managed to spend an estimated two months just talking about recursion 
then I hope we manage to resolve this little remaining syntactic detail 
here too. If we only expect a boolean response then different SHACL 
implementations will not be interchangeable, severely reducing the value 
of the language.

Holger