ISSUE-68: QB validation rules miss a potentially common case
QB validation gap
QB validation rules miss a potentially common case
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Data Cube Vocabulary
- Raised by:
- Dave Reynolds
- Opened on:
- 2013-07-18
- Description:
- An implementation report [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Jul/0008.html] has revealed that the validation rules in the spec are not as complete as we would have liked. They fail to detect a potentially common case.
The DataCube validation rules check that every Observation has a (unique) associated qb:DataSet (ic-1) and that every declared qb:DataSet has a structure definition (ic-2).
However, if the dataset associated with the observation does not have an explicit type declaration then ic-2 is not applied to it.
This is arguably an omission in the closure rules in phase one of the normalization algorithm [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#normalize-algorithm].
Should also have:
INSERT {
?ds rdf:type qb:DataSet .
} WHERE {
?o qb:dataSet ?ds .
};
The specification does say that implementations MAY use full RDFS inference which would cover this case. But it is only a MAY.
The hard question is what to do about this process-wise. Both the rules and normalization algorithm having been marked At Risk we can delete them but I don't think we can extend them without a reset to the process.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- AW: ISSUE-69 (IC-8 Errata): Typo in IC-8 rule [Data Cube Vocabulary] (from kaempgen@fzi.de on 2013-11-05)
- Re: ISSUE-69 (IC-8 Errata): Typo in IC-8 rule [Data Cube Vocabulary] (from sandro@w3.org on 2013-11-04)
- Re: ISSUE-69 (IC-8 Errata): Typo in IC-8 rule [Data Cube Vocabulary] (from dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com on 2013-11-02)
- ISSUE-68 (QB validation gap): QB validation rules lack miss a potentially common case [Data Cube Vocabulary] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-07-18)
Related notes:
Discussed 18-Jul-2-13 at GLD WG call.
Would read better as: "ISSUE-68: QB validation rules miss a potentially common case" (omit work "lack")
DaveReynolds: if someone had validator by the spec, they would have to tweak their validator, but data users would not. And anyone with such a validator would want this change.
Sandro: We should have an implementors report page and notate this & ensure an email goes out about this issue.
DaveReynolds agreed to prepare email & send to public gld list, Sandro to ensure Ralph is OK with proposed approach.
Detailed write up and proposed solution posted to public comments list at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Jul/0017.html
Dave Reynolds, 18 Jul 2013, 16:04:27Dave Reynolds posted to mailing list. We didn't think it would affect any implementers & notified as such. Working group agreed with approach.
Bernadette Hyland, 15 Aug 2013, 14:20:17Display change log
