ISSUE-196: Should we delete filter shapes?
Should we delete filter shapes?
- SHACL Spec
- Raised by:
- Holger Knublauch
- Opened on:
- We have struggled quite a bit with filter shapes and their exact meaning, and continue to have open tickets on them. Just now I discovered that we have not specified what exactly needs to happen if a filter produces failures. They also appear to confuse users, esp in their interaction with targets. Semantically, all use cases of filter shapes can be covered with sh:or. It would simplify the language, implementations and the learning curve if we could get rid of them.
The major capability of filter shapes that we have found useful so far is the ability to disable shapes or constraints provided by other graphs. This ability should be preserved, also to temporarily disable tests during development.
PROPOSAL: Delete filter shapes. Instead, add a boolean flag sh:disabled which (if true) means that a shape or constraint is ignored.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-196 (Delete filters): Should we delete filter shapes? [SHACL Spec] (from email@example.com on 2016-11-16)
- shapes-ISSUE-196 (Delete filters): Should we delete filter shapes? [SHACL Spec] (from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2016-11-16)
RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-196, deleting filter shape and instead, adding a boolean flag sh:disabled which (if true) means that a shape or constraint is ignored (i.e., any node is considered conforming/valid).
Display change log