Re: Shapes/ShEx or the worrying issue of yet another syntax and lack of validated vision.

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 7/16/14, 9:38 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
>> Most people in my experience don't care about open world semantics, but
>> of course nobody would admit that because it's against the specs and
>> thousands of academic papers.
>>
>
> The cultural heritage community cares deeply about open world semantics.
> This community has a tradition of creating primarily public-facing data
> and, even in pre-Web eras, sharing that data widely. For the cultural
> heritage community, the public, open web is the primary target for its data.
>
> You confirm for me the impression that much of the discussion here is in
> the context of enterprise data systems. I will, however, do my best to keep
> the open world visible in these discussions.


Our primary customers are enterprise data systems in which open world
semantics are key to doing database and other data integration via
inference. And then they also need validation fo the resulting data
integrations for which closed world semantics (and unique name assumption)
are vital. Needless to say, there isn't really a widespread consensus on
this question.

Our approach to RDF validation employs both closed & open world because
that's how the real world seems to work. See http://docs.stardog.com/icv/
for more details.

Cheers,
Kendall Clark