- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 20:06:42 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/8/16 12:33 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > > On 8/10/2016 2:46, Karen Coyle wrote: >> >> >> On 10/6/16 4:53 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> On 7/10/2016 7:36, Karen Coyle wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/5/16 8:58 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3.4.1.8 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. >>> >>> Any edit that I am making is primarily a proposal that be further >>> changed or replaced. I am trying my best to accommodate the input that I >>> receive, but you will understand that I need to also apply my own >>> judgement about whether something makes sense or not. That's why I asked >>> whether you can live with my edits. In cases where we still disagree we >>> can ask the group. My tendency is already to accept suggestions even if >>> I disagree, for the sole reason of making progress. Some things are just >>> not worth fighting over, IMHO. In this particular case though, your >>> proposed wording was not in accordance to the current design of SHACL, >>> as I understand it. >> >> Exactly what was it about the suggested wording that is not in >> accordance with the current design of SHACL? We can't discuss this >> unless you say why you made the choice you did. > > I believe the main issue was your suggestion to state "locally defined > severity". There is no need to define anything locally here, and it > would require a statement about where the definition would need to be > made, and which triples are required to count as a "definition". As I > had clarified in the spec yesterday, there is no semantics attached to > the severity, e.g. the hasShape test ignores the value. Due to this, > there are no restrictions in the language here. > > Holger There was more in my suggested edit. "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." The first part states that constraint violation severities may be coded in the shapes graph using the property sh:severity... I'm fine with changing "locally defined severities" but not with dropping the rest of the suggested changed, which I think is important. I have created an issue for sh:severity and sh:message that should help the group address this. kc > > > >> >> kc >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> The rdfs:range of sh:severity is sh:Severity, and following usual RDFS >>> practices this means that the system will assume that any IRI that it >>> gets is an instance of sh:Severity, whether it has that type triple >>> or not. >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I did include that, see "in the shapes graph" >>> >>> Constraints may specify their severity level in the <a>shapes graph</a> >>> using the property <code>sh:severity</code> >>> >>> and I also included a very long example that clarifies this. >>> >>>> >>>> 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 product. >>> >>> You are completely misinterpreting the situation, see above. >>> >>> Holger >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Sunday, 9 October 2016 03:07:18 UTC