On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com> wrote: > 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. > 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. Best, Dimitris > > Cheers, > Kendall > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Research Group: http://aksw.org Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 16:21:42 UTC