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

On Thursday, July 17, 2014, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Kendall, I'm not sure what you're saying here - that because this
> commercial software exists we don't need an open standard?


I'm saying that the standard should be based on real world tools that have
users, customers, documentation, test suites, and production quality
implementations.


>  Quite honestly, I never expect to have $$ to become a customer of any of
> these, and that is true for a lot of institutions with which I am familiar.
>
> Is this "running, shipping code" available for those who need to create
> their own solutions?


Having open source implementations is orthogonal to my point, which is that
the WG should start with real systems as input.

Cheers,
Kendall