is shexc useful?

[changing the subject, since you changed the topic]

On 08/06/2014 08:58 AM, Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org 
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     Is it?    To me it looks like someone combined data structure
>     definitions from any language that has such things (Pascal, C,
>     Java, Go, ....) with the Kleene operators, known to every
>     programmer from EBNF and RegExps.
>
>     Eric may have been thinking about relaxng, but the design makes
>     prefect sense and seems completely familiar to some of us not
>     steeped in relaxng
>
>
> Isn't this still a vendor organization?

W3C is probably more accurately described as a multi-stakeholder 
organization.   Its mission involves the good of the Web, not 
specifically the good of its members or a set of vendors.   The 
arguments that should win the day are grounded in what's going to be 
long-term good for the Web (and the world at large), much more than good 
for one specific vendor or set of vendors.


> Whatever you want to say about the origin and quality of ShEx syntax 
> (I don't like it at all, personally), the fact remains:
>
> * it has no users

The reply from Jose Emilio Labra Gayo shows otherwise.

> * it has no production implementations
> * it has no *company* standing behind it to support it in the market
> * it has no experts writing books about it

That's essentially true of every technology working its way through 
W3C.  Whatever comes into the process gets turned into something else on 
its way to Rec.   When things work properly, along the way, it picks up 
lots of production implementations, gets lots of companies standing 
behind it, and probably gets some books. Whatever of those things it had 
before starting the process.... those things maybe help bootstrap the 
process, but they're also a drag on the process since they often require 
backward compatibility.    Are the current SPIN and ICV users perfectly 
okay with those technologies being changed by the WG?   So having those 
things at the start is a mixed blessing.   Probably a net positive, but 
still a mixed blessing.


>
> I have told Holger many times privately that I don't really like SPIN 
> too much, but it has *all* of the above things and more. Same goes for 
> IBM Resource Shapes.
>
> ShEx is a research project and nothing more. I thought we weren't 
> doing R&D in W3C WGs any more?
>

It seems to me like it's aways a matter of degree, with every WG doing 
some R&D.   What we don't want is a REC whose predicted success is based 
on untested assumptions.    But all these inputs took to me to have 
various untested assumptions, when you consider them being applied to 
all the use cases being presented.


> There are *three* at least *adequate* commercial solutions to start 
> from. There's simply no need for ShEx.
>

I've seen a variety of statements from people on this list, and at the 
workshop, that seem to disagree.

> Cheers,
> Kendall
>
> PS--No offense meant to EricP: he's a fine researcher in this space 
> and I'm sure there are several good papers to be written about ShEx.

My understanding is Eric isn't trying to do research.   He's been trying 
to solve the problem that the Workshop brought to light. Success will be 
technology adoption and user satisfaction, not publications.   If the 
technology turns out not to be useful, that's also success for Eric -- 
the problem is still solved.

> But this is standardization of a space that has, in some sense, *too 
> many* starting points, not too few. SPIN, Resource Shapes, and even 
> ICV are all *real* systems in comparison.

Yes, but the workshop conclusion was none of those were sufficient.   
Perhaps that conclusion was wrong, I know.   This is something the WG 
will have to determine.   IMHO there's no point is us trying to figure 
it out via this list.

      -- Sandro