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

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Kendall Clark <>

> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas <
>> 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.

Instead of criticizing what ShEx can't do we should all try to see what
ShEx should do.
I think we all agree that a compact human syntax (with equivalent RDF
representation) that covers common validations cases and SPARQL extensions
is something we all want.
I too don't like some parts of ShEx but I think it's a good initiative to
bootstrap a standard.
I already raised some issues in the mailing list and have a few more from
my experience with RDFUnit - but will raise them later since the
maintainers are now too busy replying.


> Cheers,
> Kendall

Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group:

Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 16:21:42 UTC