Re: validation results and validation reports

Peter,

This is a partial response. Please see below.

Irene

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Some of the wording in the SHACL document still talks about producing
> validation results and needs to be adjusted.

I found only two instances of the word “producing”:

In section 3

 Conformance checking <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-conformance-checking> is a simplified version of validation, producing a boolean result.

and section 6.3

As the first step, a validator <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-validators> must be selected based on the rules outlined in 6.2.3 Validators <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#constraint-components-validators>. Then the following rules apply, producing a set of solutions <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#dfn-solution> of SPARQL queries:

Are you unhappy about the first sentence or about both of them and what would you see as better wording?


> 
> Validation of a focus node against a shape depends on "the validation of the
> focus node against all constraints declared by the shape".  "A shape in a
> shapes graph declares a constraint of kind c if c is a constraint component
> and the shape has values for all mandatory parameters of c."  However, this
> ignores situations where a shape as multiple values for parameters of
> constraint components that have a single parameter.  This is correctly
> overridden in the next paragraph, but the incorrect should be corrected.
> Then there is "The interpretation of such declarations is conjunction,
> i.e. all constraints apply." which is redundant.
> 

Hmm… I re-read this part of section 2.1.1 and I think it reads well and the meaning is clear. I suppose it is possible to change the first sentence so that it conveys both ideas together, but I can’t think of how to do so without creating a very convoluted, hard to parse sentence.

If you have suggestions, please provide.

> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>