Re: is shexc useful?

On 8/7/14, 4:38 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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.

Yes, starting with those technologies is a net positive, and therefore 
experimental technologies like ShEx should be one input among others 
only. Of course most SPIN users will be OK with the technologies 
changing - we actually fine tune SPIN all the time. It is a matter of 
tool vendors to shield their existing users from such pains. For example 
if W3C decides to change the namespace then we offer a convert button. I 
believe that TopBraid would track the specification as it evolves. So 
there is clearly an additional positive here in that we can instantly 
expose this technology to a wider audience than the ShEx prototypes can 
reach.

The same applies perhaps to OWL Closed World - most people that I know 
already use OWL with Closed World semantics, sometimes fully aware that 
this is against the official spec. And whether W3C has been particularly 
successful with its Semantic Web standards so far is a matter of debate. 
IMHO if OWL had started with Closed World semantics, it would have been 
much more widely used than where we are now. (My experiences are 
obviously biased because I am working for a company that mostly aims at 
the enterprise market, but I remember exactly the same discussions about 
Frames vs OWL when I was still an academic at Stanford).

So: neither do I believe that having an existing language is an 
obstacle, nor do I believe that W3C has been particularly successful in 
predicting the future (despite good intentions and very skilled and hard 
working staff).

Holger