Re: shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need to section 3.0

On 10/5/16 8:58 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>> Declaring the Severity of a Constraint uses "can" not "MAY",
>>>> and gives the default as sh:Violation (Does that mean T/F cannot have
>>>> a default?). Better wording would be:
>>>> "The severity level of a constraint violation MAY be coded in the
>>>> constraint of a shapes graph using the property sh:severity, which
>>>> takes as its value one of the SHACL pre-defined severities, or a
>>>> locally defined severity." (followed by remaining sentences)
>>> I have applied similar wording to 3.4.8.
>> I don't see changes in those sections - did the changes actually go in?
> I did not use your exact wording, but please verify whether you can live
> with 3.4.8 and 3.4.9 now. I didn't use the term "locally defined
> severity" because it will open more questions such as "in which graph".
> So I went with that it can be any IRI.

The wording you have applied is NOT similar to what I suggested - not in 
any way. I don't believe that you understood the changes I was 
requesting. If you had a question about this, you could have come back 
to me before making the edit.

1) I don't think that "any other IRI" is an answer.  If a random IRI is 
included there I doubt if that would be useful. The bigger question, 
though, is whether it would be valid SHACL. (And "valid SHACL" is, at 
this moment in time, undefined.)

The section says: "SHACL includes the following three pre-defined 
severities, which are defined in the SHACL vocabulary as SHACL instances 
of sh:Severity." Would a random IRI be a valid object of sh:severity or 
must it be an instance of sh:Severity?

2) I actually have "which graph" questions about the entire validation 
section because although it says "Each validation result must have 
exactly one value for the property sh:severity." it doesn't say where 
that value comes from -- it seems to come from thin air. However, unless 
one is opting for the default "violation" the severity must be coded in 
the shapes graph. I was adding a clarification about that to the section 
with my suggested wording, and you didn't include that.

Again, I'd be happy to provide edits, but I'm not likely to put much 
effort into edits since you appear to have the option to personally 
reject proffered changes without discussion with me or with the group. 
That leaves me with little recourse, and little possibility of having an 
impact on SHACL. That's not a good state of affairs. I could support a 
very different document that uses more precise language, but what is 
here today is not acceptable to me. I don't know what the solution is, 
but I cannot put in effort with no possibility of impacting the final 


Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 6 October 2016 21:36:48 UTC