implement semantic validation

[grindhold]

No description provided.

[akuckartz]

Please define "semantic validation".

[grindhold]

checking if the values that are supplied actually make sense. for example:
if a OParl.System has a valid license, and a subordinated OParl.Paper has not, this is valid, because according to the spec the System-license applies to all its subordinates. The other way round it's also okay. But it's not okay if neither have a license.
Checking wheter there is a endDate that is older than the same objects startDate which is also pretty invalid - except when we want to cover time-travelling politicians in the future™.
Checking wheter the classification fields contain the values that are recommended in the spec.

I want three levels of violation

• INFO -> something is valid by the spec but common sense says that there is something not cool here
• WARNING -> something that has been recommended in the spec is missing
• ERROR -> something violates the spec

I want some more sophisticated validation than what a simple library call to a JSONSchema library could do. Thus the split into syntactic checking and semantic validation. Ruling out common human mistakes.

[akuckartz]

Such constraints potentially can be specified using Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL). Further links at OpenGovLD/specs#137.

[grindhold]

This sounds like linking against libxml2 which I'd prefer to avoid. I also don't really care about things that can "potentially" be specified at the moment. I rather care about things that have been specified. Such things are better discussed at OParl/spec, I presume.

[akuckartz]

Some of your own examples violate common sense but not necessarily the specification.