W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Validation results (Was Re: Moving forward)

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 16:38:18 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a3tDL6oTbDoR11MZWg+6XupRjOwt5ehhfd-igrdEHH-wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: "public-rdf-sha." <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
If this cannot be a separate deliverable I suggest to add the following in
the scope:

Reporting
The language will facilitate different levels of constraint violation
reporting based on user preference upon validation execution. The WG will
define the minimum set of supported reporting levels, e.g. reporting per
constraint, error count and prevalence or per erroneous resource instance.

I think of this as very important and it will probably drive some decisions
in the language specification.

Sent from my mobile, excuse my brevity.

Best,
Dimitris
On Aug 7, 2014 11:18 PM, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> wrote:

> Reading this as a proposal for a new Deliverable, here are a couple
> precedents:
>
>   XQuery has enumerated error codes.
>
>   W3C XML Schema defines a post-validation infoset which reflects the
>   effects and the extent of the verification.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, neither of these features were listed in
> their respective charters, but that doesn't need we should include it.
> Will anyone second or object to this proposal?
>
>
> * Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
> [2014-08-07 17:40+0300]
> > 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
> > >
>
> --
> -ericP
>
> office: +1.617.599.3509
> mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
>
> (eric@w3.org)
> Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
> email address distribution.
>
> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 13:38:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:40 UTC