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

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

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:24:42 -0700
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <27b064bb-6c24-304b-4838-3f3e780a66c4@kcoyle.net>


On 9/29/16 8:40 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-182 (Validation report): [Editorial] Clarifications need
> to section 3.0
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/182
>
> Raised by: Karen Coyle On product:
>
> Section 3.0 on validation talks about the validation results, but
> doesn't explain clearly which properties are required and which are
> optional. It also should refer to the shapes graph as the source of
> the properties, not just to their appearance in the report. Some
> examples:
>
> "3.4.1.3 Value (sh:value)
>
> Validation results may have a value for the property sh:value
> pointing at a specific node that has caused the result."
>
> - it isn't clear if sh:value MUST be returned if sh:value is coded in
> the constraint, or if echoing back sh:value when it exists is itself
> optional.
>
> 3.4.1.8 Declaring the Severity of a Constraint uses "can" not "MAY",

The other recent email regarding validation reports (from Jose) made me 
realize this:

3.4.1.7 - "Each validation result must have exactly one value for the 
property sh:severity."

then

3.4.1.8 - " sh:Violation is the default if unspecified."

It isn't possible for sh:severity to be both mandatory and unspecified. 
The value of sh:severity could be unknown (which would be an error), but 
it cannot be unspecified. If sh:severity is not supplied, that would 
also be an error. I suppose that in the case of such errors one could 
default to sh:Violation, but that isn't what is said here.

Would a better solution be to make sh:severity optional, which would 
then also allow for the T/F case?

kc

> 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)
>
> Also, the example given shows the shapes graph, but would be more
> informative if it also included the validation report that results.
>
> Note that examples throughout do not include sh:severity or
> sh:message in constraints, which requires some explanation, perhaps
> in the introductory area where examples are described. (I presume
> that it is expected that most or many constraints will include a
> severity, so it would be a normally occurring property, and that
> sh:message will also be common.)
>
> The Example validation report in section 2.2 (Filter shapes) has
> sh:severity and sh:message although those are not shown in the shapes
> graph.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 00:25:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:36 UTC