Connecting SHACL-Core and SHACL-SPARQL

[afs]

1: SHACL-Core

Are "violation" and "constraint violation" the same thing?

Neither seems to have a definition but such an important concept should be exported and also linked to by other documents.

2: SHACL-SPARQL

Looks to me as if this (SHACL-sparql) should link to "violation" here, not "failure".

A failure MUST be produced if and only if one of the solutions has true as the binding for failure.

Other uses of "failure" in SHACL-SPARQL look to be correct.

[HolgerKnublauch]

1. The term that we are trying to use consistently is "validation result". Violation is just one specific type of those results. I just searched for usages of "violation" in the current SHACL Core draft and don't see any where this is unclear IMHO. Do you see specific sentences that need tweaking?

If you want to talk about violations from other documents, you could refer to validation results with severity sh:Violation.

2. On the SPARQL failure, the intent is to really use failure here. Why do you think it should be violation there?

[afs]

The term that we are trying to use consistently is "validation result".

OK - suggestion - use a link when the formal concept is being used as is done in SHACL-core.

[HolgerKnublauch]

So what remains to be done here in particular.

[afs]

SHACL-Core

If not already done, make "violation" and "constraint violation" the same thing.

SHACL-SPARQL

My suggestion is link uses of "validation result" in SHACL-SPARQL to SHACL -Core