- From: Håvard Ottestad <hmottestad@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:36:29 +0200
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: lars.svensson@web.de, Public Shacl W3C <public-shacl@w3.org>
Hi, I’ve given this more thought. Once content profiles becomes a standard it would probably solve this very well. We could then indicate that our response is both N-Quads and a validation report, and together with an HTTP error code it would be a clean way of saying “your request failed, you can see the reason in this N-Quads file that represents the validation report”. In the mean time we (RDF4J) are already using the content-type approach that was initially discussed here back in March. It was released as part of RDF4J 3.2.0 (May 7th) to communicate a validation error between the RDF4J Server and a client. We may consider migrating to a custom header while we wait for content profiles to become mainstream. Håvard > On 10 Jun 2020, at 16:47, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 08/06/2020 08:58, Håvard Ottestad wrote: >> Hi, >> Following up after a test of Stardog. >> It seems that they use the following header to indicate a validation error: >> SD-Error-Code: TXHRE2 >> I guess SD stands for Stardog. >> They also return json and don't respect the Accept header. >> A question for you Andy. Does Fuseki support SHACL in such a way as to cancel a transaction if committing it would violate the shapes? > > Not yet in Fuseki; it is in the "plan". It does exist in the codebase, but isn't accessible in Fuseki yet without loading custom code. > > Andy > >> Cheers, >> Håvard >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 7:40 AM <lars.svensson@web.de <mailto:lars.svensson@web.de>> wrote: >> On Freitag, 05. Juni 2020 um 01:24 Uhr, "Andy Seaborne" >> <andy@apache.org <mailto:andy@apache.org>> wrote: >> [...] >> > > I don’t see how a SHACL validation violation would produce >> anything other than a SHACL validation report. >> > > >> > > My initial thought was a custom header and standard mime type. >> > >> > Vladimir has mentioned profiles: >> > >> > https://www.w3.org/TR/dx-prof-conneg/ >> > >> > which look like a progressive approach. >> [Disclaimer: I'm one of the editors of that document] >> Yes, this is exactly what profiles are for. What's needed is a URI >> that identifies a document as a SHACL validation report >> _irrespective of the media type_ (i.e it's orthogonal to the fact >> that it's turtle or RDF/XML or any other syntax). >> > So I see there are choices to consider before making a de-facto >> > registration (a CG can't formally register a MIME type). >> Can a CG can write a note defining URIs for SHACL profiles? I guess >> there would be two of them, one for shape definition documents (or >> rather "this document contains (among other things) shape >> definitions" and one for SHACL validation reports. >> And (this one's for Andy): Is profiles something you could consider >> adding to Jena? >> Best, >> Lars
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2020 06:36:45 UTC