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: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:51:43 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56AAFDEF.7030200@topquadrant.com>
I have added such a paragraph, (hopefully) reflecting today's resolution:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/e50a4c4aa6234ca3ea957d1db913103e37edee39

Regards,
Holger


On 26/01/2016 12:32 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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 Friday, 29 January 2016 05:52:17 UTC

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