Re: Technology options

On 11/04/2014 12:38 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> While we are collecting and cleaning up requirements and use cases, I 
> am trying to see if we can do technical preparation work in parallel. 
> It would IMHO be sad if we spend the next few months with nothing but 
> requirements, especially given that EricP already had collected quite 
> a number of requirements and I believe we already have quite a good 
> basic understanding of what the WG is supposed to deliver.
>
> Maybe we could also create Wiki pages to discuss the strengths and 
> weaknesses of each technology, allowing the proponents to clarify what 
> they envision. It should be clear that any input technology is just 
> the starting point, and that missing features can be added to any of 
> the languages.
>
> So looking at the meeting last week, I believe the current catalog of 
> starting points is:
>
> - ShEx
> - OWL (Closed World) only
> - Resource Shapes + SPIN
> - OWL + SPIN
> - OWL + Resource Shapes + SPIN
>
> - Any other (new) technology ?
To the best of my knowledge, there is also RDFUnit[1] that supports both 
OWL and Resource Shapes. The proponent is not on the WG (don't know if 
it can be an option).
>
> Are any other proposals on the table?
>
> I have not included Resource Shapes stand-alone because it would be 
> very similar to ShEx but without extension mechanism.
>
> Holger
>
>
Kind regards,
Anastasia

[1] https://github.com/AKSW/RDFUnit

-- 

Anastasia Dimou
@natadimou | mmlab.be | iminds.be | rml.io
Semantic Web - Linked Open Data Researcher
Ghent University, Belgium - Multimedia Lab - iMinds