-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added strict flag for clean_prefix_map()
#353
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR is a no-brainer and can be merged, but it wont solve the OAK problem -the question is who is responsible for filling in missing prefixes?
We could do it here using your solution using the missing IRI but does that mean when the missing IRI is added to the For e.g. let's say
and all mentions of Assuming it won't be |
I was thinking this: For e.g. let's say ABCD:1234 is unaccounted for. Currently
Now what you do is this inject the ABC prefix:
Thats it? |
Aaahhh .... much elegant. I likes! |
But does that mean the |
Definetely not. this should only be done in strict=false mode. |
Fixes #351
As of the current state, if all prefixes in a dataframe are not accounted for in the
curie_map
, no output is generated and the process errors out.For now setting the default to be
True
but I'm not sure if it should be True/False. Thoughts @matentzn ?