Re: validation results and validation reports

On 03/14/2017 05:37 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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?

You can't look for just "producing".  Natural language doesn't work that way.


A quick check of the current version of the document finds the following
passages in the SHACL Core sections that almost certainly need to be
adjusted:

Furthermore, the validators always produce new result nodes, i.e. when the
textual definition states that "...a validation result MUST be produced..."
then this refers to a distinct new node in a results graph.

If an ASK query does not evaluate to true for a value node, a validation
result is produced based on the rules outlined in the section on ASK-based
validators.

If the comparison cannot be performed, then the SHACL processor will
produce a validation result.

If a value node is violating the constraint, sh:node will produce only a
single validation result for this value node, with

On the other hand side, sh:property may produce any number of validation results,

The produced validation result MUST have the predicate of the triple as its
sh:resultPath, and the object of the triple as its sh:value.


There are also other passages that probably need to be adjusted:

This is the focus node that was validated when the validation result was
produced.

For results produced by a property shape, this path is equivalent to the
value of sh:path of the shape.

For example, results produced due to a violation of a constraint based on a
value of sh:minCount would have the source constraint component
sh:MinCountConstraintComponent.

If a shape has at least one value for sh:message in the shapes graph, then
all validation results produced as a result of the shape

The value of sh:conforms is true if and only if the validation did not
produce any validation results.

For every validation result that is produced by a validation process (except
those mentioned in the context of conformance checking),

Note that these validators define the only validation results that are being
produced by the component.


The above are likely to not be a complete list of passages that need to be
adjusted.


When changes are made to the SHACL document the rest of the document needs
to be examined to see if there are further changes needed.  This does not
appear to have happened here.



>> 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.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01795 has the following wording, which I think
works well.

For a constraint component C with mandatory parameters p1 , ..., pn, a shape
s in a shapes graph S has a constraint that has kind C with mandatory
parameter values <p1,v1>, ..., <pn,vn> in S when s has vi as a value for pi
in S.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications

Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 14:39:35 UTC