Validation results (Was Re: Moving forward)

I'm bringing this in a separate thread.

Validation results are very important for the progress of this WG and
should be a standalone deliverable.

Take sparql for instance, it's not only the syntax that makes it useful but
what one expects to get when he executes a query. Having non standardised
sparql responses makes clients break.

In addition, it is the results we want to get that should partially drive
the standard, not the other way around.

In RDFUnit we provide flexible validation execution plans that range from:
Success / fail
Success / fail per constraint
Fails with error counts
Individual resources that fail per constraint
And enriched failed resources with annotations

Of course there can be other type of reports. This WG should try and
identify the most common ones and define a flexible vocabulary that defines
the report type along with the results.

Right now in this charter, what someone expects from a validation execution
is very vague.

Best,
Dimitris
On Aug 6, 2014 9:54 PM, "Dimitris Kontokostas" <
kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> I suggest to add the following deliverable (as required in my opinion):
>
> "An RDF vocabulary, for expressing the results of a validation execution,
> so they can be stored, queried, analyzed, and manipulated with normal RDF
> tools.
>
> I already developed such a vocabulary in http://rdfunit.aksw.org/ns/core#
> and a thorough description is in
> NLP data cleansing based on Linguistic Ontology constraints by Dimitris
> Kontokostas, Martin Brümmer,Sebastian Hellmann, Jens Lehmann, and Lazaros
> Ioannidis in Proc. of the Extended Semantic Web Conference 2014
> (http://jens-lehmann.org/files/2014/eswc_rdfunit_nlp.pdf)
>
> Best regards,
> Dimtiris
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Arnaud,
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that there is sufficient consensus regarding sections 2 and 3
>> of the charter as currently written and the changes being sought now are in
>> section 4 (deliverable definition). I also agree that discussions within
>> the framework of a WG are likely to be more productive than the way it's
>> happening now on the mailing list.
>>
>> If the definition of deliverables (section 4) can be modified after the
>> group starts working, this may be a workable way of proceeding. However, if
>> the deliverables can’t be modified after the group starts (which is what I
>> was told once before in the context of the Linked Data in Government WG),
>> than this is a bigger issue – I am not comfortable with deliverables as
>> they are without the ability to modify them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Irene
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Arnaud Le Hors [mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:32 PM
>> *To:* public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Moving forward
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As chair-to-be of the proposed WG I've been working with the W3C Team on
>> trying to find a way forward that would be acceptable by all.
>>
>> The normative change proposed to the charter [draft charter] which was to
>> start with use cases and requirements instead of assuming Resource Shapes
>> as a starting point was made weeks ago. The Team has actually made the
>> charter technology neutral with regard to all of the various candidates out
>> there and has now made the compact human-readable syntax an optional
>> deliverable and added a reference to Dublin Core Application Profiles. I
>> haven't seen any other proposal that seems to have general support.
>>
>> [draft charter] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter
>>
>> So at this point, I think we're better off going with the proposed
>> charter, launch the WG, and direct our efforts towards writing up the use
>> cases, requirements, and exploring what the best solution might be
>> objectively.
>>
>> There is definitely a risk that the WG will struggle to find a direction
>> with such an open ended charter but at the same time I think it will be
>> more productive to have a discussion within the framework of a WG than the
>> way it's happening now on this mailing list.
>>
>> I can say that I've worked with Arthur Ryman so that IBM would support
>> this even though this isn't what he wanted (FYI Arthur and I are from
>> different groups within IBM). Standards are made of compromises, so I hope
>> you will all do the same.
>>
>> I look forward to working with you all.
>> Thank you.
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM
>> Software Group
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
>