Ignore deprecated statements when checking “inverse”, “symmetric”, “item requires claim”, and “value requires claim” constraints?
Closed, DeclinedPublic

Description

If a property requires a certain statement on an item, and that statement exists but is deprecated… should that be reported as a constraint violation? I’m not sure, because it seems to me that there’s no good fix for this violation (there’s probably a good reason the statement is deprecated, and undeprecating it or adding a normal-rank copy is probably not the right thing to do).

Restricted Application added a subscriber: Aklapper. · View Herald TranscriptJul 12 2017, 10:56 AM
Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE renamed this task from Ignore deprecated statements when checking “inverse” and “symmetric” constraints? to Ignore deprecated statements when checking “inverse”, “symmetric”, and “value requires claim” constraints?.Jul 12 2017, 10:57 AM
Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE updated the task description. (Show Details)
Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE renamed this task from Ignore deprecated statements when checking “inverse”, “symmetric”, and “value requires claim” constraints? to Ignore deprecated statements when checking “inverse”, “symmetric”, “item requires claim”, and “value requires claim” constraints?.
Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE updated the task description. (Show Details)

Do we have a reasonably easy way to find statements that this would apply to so we can look at concrete examples?

With enough optimization by hand, it’s possible. This query finds “item requires claim” constraints only satisfied by a deprecated statement (2 results); this query finds “inverse” and “value requires claim” constraints only satisfied by a deprecated statement (83 results); and this query finds “symmetric” constraints only satisfied by a deprecated statement (0 results – perhaps I got the query wrong).

Lydia_Pintscher closed this task as Declined.Fri, Dec 29, 1:09 PM

Looking at these I'd say let's keep them for now and see what editors say when it is in the wild.