W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-118 (syntax errors): syntax errors should not be confusable with validation results [SHACL Spec]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:32:10 -0800
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56A631EA.7090705@gmail.com>
I propose that "[t]he spec should require that under [standard] conditions the
only validation results [reported] are the product of validation of the data
graph.

I would have thought that this would not be required, but evidence indicates
that this is not so.

peter


On 01/24/2016 08:55 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Yes. But I am not sure what needs to be discussed here on this ticket. Do you
> have a proposal to make, leading to changes in the spec?
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 23/01/2016 1:04 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> The test below was done with separate data and shapes graphs and standard
>> settings.  The spec should require that under these conditions the only
>> validation results are the product of validation of the data graph.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> On 01/21/2016 09:58 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> I think that's an implementation detail. Some engines may test the shapes
>>> graph in advance, others may not do that (to save time). I don't think we are
>>> prescribing that this test is mandatory. I believe all we need to say is that
>>> results are undefined if the shapes graph is invalid. If an engine wants to
>>> perform this test then, indeed, it could produce strong runtime errors and
>>> stop processing.
>>>
>>> The results that Peter mentions below were produced because the shapes graph
>>> was used as input (data graph) to the validation engine. Therefore, the
>>> results look like any other result.
>>>
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/01/2016 5:13 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>> I'd like to see SHACL errors not mixed in with data validation errors.
>>>> We previously agreed that other runtime errors would be reported
>>>> separately. Why not report SHACL errors that way too?
>>>>
>>>> -- Arthur
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:06 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
>>>> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>> shapes-ISSUE-118 (syntax errors): syntax errors should not be confusable
>>>>> with validation results [SHACL Spec]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/118
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
>>>>> On product: SHACL Spec
>>>>>
>>>>> SHACL syntax errors should not be easily confusable with validation results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something like the following is not suitable as the report of a syntax
>>>>> error.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ a       <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#ValidationResult> ;
>>>>>     <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#message>
>>>>>             "Required minimum value count 1 but found
>>>>> 0"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string> ;
>>>>>     <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#predicate>
>>>>>             <http://peoplepetsontology.example.com/pet> ;
>>>>>     <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#severity>
>>>>>             <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#Violation> ;
>>>>>     <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#sourceConstraint>
>>>>>             []  ;
>>>>>     <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#sourceShape>
>>>>>             []  ;
>>>>>     <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#sourceTemplate>
>>>>>             <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#AbstractMinCountPropertyConstraint>
>>>>> ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 25 January 2016 14:32:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:29 UTC