W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > July 2014

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

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:13:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHb4HxhX36kRujBZVVbwWKO+thYdJ+YVZ4qiS4tFHaCEtWJACA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On Thursday, July 17, 2014, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>

>> 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.
> I don't think that those 2 visions (open & closed world) are incompatible.
> As Kendall Clark noticed, constraint checking can also be combined with
> Open World systems.

Actually what I noted was that we already have combined them in a
commercially shipping RDF database for the past three years. That's a lot
different than ShEx, which I cannot understand why the WG or charter would
even consider.

Running, shipping code exists in three systems from three actual vendors
(IBM, TopQuadrant, Stardog). ShEx simply doesn't belong in the same class
as these.

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 21:14:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC