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: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:23:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHb4Hxhm0iaKCXURUU9Dv7n+OkYnROW8h1=7i5ZCTB_fmCCqSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Cc: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>, Jerven Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch>, "Dam, Jesse van" <jesse.vandam@wur.nl>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas <
kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

>> The same way we have a single SPARQL standard and different
> implementations we should focus on making ShEx as generally acceptable and
> SPIN, ICV or anyone else can build their products with ShEx (or whatever
> name comes out of this) as a front end. Otherwise, this will lead to market
> segmentation and this effort will not have enough impact.

Of course this has things exactly backwards. ShEx adds nothing to the
existing solutions in this space (SPIN, ICV, IBM's Resource Shapes). ShEx
has no vendor support, no customers, no users. It's also not nearly as
mature as the other solutions, several of which have been shipping *for
years*. Further, I have serious reservations about the ShEx syntax, which I
find much worse than either of the other three...And I'm actually on record
as not being a huge fan of the SPIN or Resource Shapes approach to syntax,
they're both wildly preferable to ShEx.

Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 13:24:58 UTC

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