W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > November 2016

on ISSUE-196

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 05:05:20 -0800
To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c70620fe-bd94-8d83-48fe-62f6a635c152@gmail.com>
"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)."


Ignoring a shape/constraint is different from treating it as if "any node is
considered conforming/valid".

Consider, for example

se:s1 rdf:type sh:Shape ;
  sh:targetClass ex:Person ;
  sh:not se:s2 .

se:s2 rdf:type sh:Shape ;
  sh:nodeType sh:IRI ;
  sh:disabled true .

Ignoring se:s2 would probably result in se:s1 being uniformly valid.
Treating se:s2 as uniformly valid would result in se:s1 being uniformly
invalid.  Which result is desired?



Although it is true that filters can be replaced by OR/NOT, filters served a
useful purpose.  Removing filters makes it harder to write many useful SHACL
constructs.  I thus don't see why filters are being removed.  Removing them
does not appreciably simplify SHACL.

Disabling a shape is not a replacement for filters.  The resolution thus
seems ill-formed.  If filters are to be removed and a new feature is to be
added, there should be two resolutions.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 13:05:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:46 UTC