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

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