Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

SHACL requirements in non-normative parts of the document #57

Closed
pfps opened this issue Apr 20, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

SHACL requirements in non-normative parts of the document #57

pfps opened this issue Apr 20, 2017 · 3 comments
Labels
Waiting for Commenter

Comments

@pfps
Copy link
Contributor

pfps commented Apr 20, 2017

There are still aspects of SHACL that appear only in non-normative
(informative) sections of the document. For example, a part of Section
2.1.5 labelled as informative states a requirement on the values of
sh:resultMessage in validation results. This requirement is not stated in
any normative part of the document.

This issue has been previously reported.
@HolgerKnublauch
Copy link
Contributor

I don't see anything non-normative in 2.1.5 that is not also covered by 3.6.2.7 which is normative. Please clarify, also be explicit about which other parts you think are misplaced.

@pfps
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfps commented Apr 20, 2017

3.2.6.7 does not say what is supposed to be done, just that something should be done, and points to 2.1.5 for more information where the actual generation is only in a non-normative section.

HolgerKnublauch added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 23, 2017
@HolgerKnublauch
Clarified that values of sh:message are copied into sh:resultMessage (#…
05544dd 
…57)
@pfps
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfps commented Apr 26, 2017 •
edited
Loading

The change is fine.

This is a non-editorial change in that it places more normative conditions on implementations.

That said, the only problem was that the requirement was in a non-normative section of the document so I don't see any reason to hold up further progress because of this issue.

@pfps pfps closed this as completed Apr 26, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Waiting for Commenter
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@HolgerKnublauch @pfps