- From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:23:25 +0200
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Thanks for looking at it. I have now been able to validate the data and submitted the validation report. It was interesting to confirm that the validator was using a slightly different algorithm than simply running the specification queries. Best regards, Jose Labra On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jose, > > Finally found time to look at this, sorry for the delay. > > Short answer: > > The data is incorrect (or at least incomplete) but in ways that the official > integrity checks don't spot. The on line tool does use a different > implementation of IC-12 (to avoid the scaling problem with the sparql query) > that accidentally picks up the problem. > > Details: > > You have a number of qb:Observations which say they are in the data set > dataset:Computation. > > However dataset:Computation is not defined anywhere and in particular does > not have an associated qb:structure. > > The rule IC-12 checks for duplicate observations for which the value of > every declared dimension is the same. In the case where no dimensions are > apparently declared the official IC-12 SPARQL query will pass by default > because it never finds any duplicate observation values. The hand coded more > efficient version in the validator sees multiple observations in the same > data set which don't differ by any dimensions. Essentially a difference how > the null case is treated. > > This does reveal a limitation of the integrity checks. > > The rules check that every qb:Observation has a qb:dataSet value and that > every declared qb:DataSet has a qb:structure but doesn't catch the case > where there a qb:DataSet is implicitly used but not declared. That is a > limitation of the simplified closure algorithm. > > The WG will need to consider what to do about that. > > Thanks for the report. > > Dave > > > On 08/07/13 13:34, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote: >> >> I have a running example that I am trying to validate with the RDF >> Data Cube validator. >> >> Using my local copy of the queries it passes all the tests, however, >> when I try to use the RDF Data Cube Validator, it fails for integrity >> constraint 12. >> >> I attach the file and my local copy of the query, it is the query from >> the specification plus the prefixes and it returns NO (=success). >> >> Is it possible that the validator is using a different version of the >> query which makes it to fail? >> >> -- >> Best regards, Labra >> > -- Saludos, Labra
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 21:24:12 UTC