Fwd: Transition Request: 3 FPWGNOTE documents

I really do not think ShEx has a “copywrite" on an idea of a compact syntax. Its syntax itself was itself influenced by many different syntaxes/previous works, I am sure.

Further, the syntaxes are not identical. They are similar. For example, SHACL has target declarations and it is supported in the syntax. The way cardinalities are expressed is different. 

I guess one option would be to modify the syntax to be even less similar. But I can’t think what could be done to make it significantly more different - because the information it is trying to express is very similar and it is expressed in an obvious way as a “property”, then a list of constraints for the values such as the data type, cardinality, etc. There is nothing novel or special in this format.

I suppose one could change delimiters. However, many delimiters are quite standard and making them into something else would be very peculiar e.g., the use of ‘|” for ‘or’; the use of “;”  as a separator. These are used by many-many languages. With this, I am not sure what changes would be sufficient to ensure that SHACL and ShEx compact syntax can’t be confused. Should SHACL WG members object to the ShEx CG use of the words ‘shape’, ‘node shape’, etc.? Because this will be confusing to potential users - when they hear or see shape, they wouldn’t know which one.

Overall, this sounds like an attempt to prevent SHACL from having a compact syntax so that for those who want a compact syntax, ShEx will be an only option. This is not good for the community and, to me, sounds like a desire to block progress and deprive users of SHACL of features. No one should have a right to do this, especially not on the open web.


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> Subject: Re: Transition Request: 3 FPWGNOTE documents
> Date: May 24, 2017 at 11:05:47 AM EDT
> To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, W3C Comm Team <w3t-comm@w3.org>, W3C Chairs <chairs@w3.org>, Harold Solbrig <Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
> Resent-From: chairs@w3.org
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:43:00AM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> SHACL Compact Syntax
>> https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-compact-syntax/
>> 
>> Expected publication in 6 days, on May 30.
> 
> DCMI's response of May 15 to the Call for Review included the
> following [1]:
> 
>    In light of the working group's failure to adapt ShEx as a surface
>    syntax for SHACL, over more than a year, which failed because of
>    fundamental differences between the languages, DCMI would strongly
>    object to any attempt to create a syntax for SHACL that could
>    unhelpfully be confused with ShEx.
> 
> The ShExC syntax is precisely specified, for ShEx (not SHACL), at [2].
> The ShExC test suite (with circa 350 tests) validates isomorphism
> between ShExC and ShExJ [3].
> 
> The SHACL compact syntax is visually the same as ShExC.  In effect, the
> SHACL syntax coopts the ShExC syntax.  Use of the syntax for SHACL would
> clash with its existing use for ShEx.
> 
> We are not aware of any cases in the history of W3C where a single
> syntax binds to two conflicting models.
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2017May/0281.html
> [2] http://shex.io/shex-semantics/#shexc
> [3] https://github.com/shexSpec/shexTest/tree/master/schemas
> 
> -- 
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> 
>