Re: SHACL Compact Syntax, was Re: Fwd: Transition Request: 3 FPWGNOTE documents

Hi!
I second that. Trying to get our own compact syntax published now will cause more harm than good.
br simon
(sorry for missing out on today's call.. I've totally forgotten about it)
-------- Original message --------From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Date: 5/24/17  20:17  (GMT+01:00) To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, Data Shapes WG <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> Cc: Ralph Hodgson <rhodgson@topquadrant.com> Subject: SHACL Compact Syntax, was Re: Fwd: Transition Request: 3 FPWGNOTE  documents 

    Tom's email, to which Irene is replying, was send to a W3C Member
    Confidential mailing list (chairs@w3.org).  She accidentally
    included it in her reply, perhaps not knowing the list's
    confidentiality (which is not obvious).   Here's my to reply to that
    list, which bears on this this group:

    

    My sincere apologies, Tom.  You mentioned
      this concern to me earlier, and then I completely forgot about it
      in the flurry of documents.  That was a serious error on my part.
      

      

      I agree, it's a very bad architectural practice to design
      languages such that a non-trivial document could be syntactically
      valid in multiple languages while having different semantics.   We
      pretty much only see this in a few notoriously bad situations,
      like "1/2/2017" being either 2017-01-02 or 2017-02-01, depending
      on the locale.
      

      

      I suggest the Data Shapes Working Group withdraw its decision to
      publish this (or the Director not approve it), and instead
      delegate to an expected new SHACL CG to figure out a way to make
      the syntax disjoint from ShExC in at least the cases where the
      semantics are distinct, [then] publish it as a CG Report, much
      like ShExC, instead of a WG Note (since the WG will presumably
      have expired by then).
      

    
    

    Does that sound like a reasonably path forward?

    

    I guess another option would be to make a trivial change to the
    syntax (before next week) to make it disjoint, but I believe the
    community would be far better served by having the syntax be the
    same in places where the semantics are the same.  If that's
    possible, it seems worthwhile to take the time in a CG to figure
    that out in concert with ShEx folks.

     

    Thoughts?

    

          -- Sandro

    

    

    On 05/24/2017 11:57 AM, Irene Polikoff
      wrote:

    
    
      
      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

            
          
        
      
    
    ...