Why not adopt ShEx? (was Re: Enough already)


On 10 Dec 2016, at 11:52, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org<mailto:martynas@graphity.org>> wrote:

In case of SHACL specifically, I think the problem is that while SPIN was an elegant concept on top of SPARQL, shoehorning constraints into a vocabulary is a model mismatch, a little like putting an ORM on top of RDBMS: it works most of the time, but there will always be corner cases you cannot hammer out.

If this is indeed the case, why is the group not building upon the purpose defined ShEx approach?

Its concise notation makes it very elegant for defining constraints. I have been using it in a tool for almost two years now. The tool is quick and easy to adapt to new sets of constraints by specifying a new ShEx schema.

I also find its use of exclusive or more naturally fits the requirements I have encountered for constraint specifications.

Best regards,

Alasdair

Alasdair J G Gray
Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
Assistant Professor in Computer Science,
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
(Athena SWAN Bronze Award)
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh UK.

Email: A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk<mailto:A.J.G.Gray@hw.ac.uk>
Web: http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ajg33

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-4872

Office: Earl Mountbatten Building 1.39
Twitter: @gray_alasdair

________________________________

Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, delivering innovation and educational excellence in business, engineering, design and the physical, social and life sciences.

The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system.

Received on Sunday, 11 December 2016 17:27:22 UTC