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

>
> Sorry, but I see zero advantages of ShEx over SPIN/SPARQL.
>
> Why would I want to lock my software into a new non-standard syntax with
> close to none adoption, when I can simply use the query engine to validate
> constraints?
>
>
>

I couldn't agree more.  In FIBO,  we have been looking for a constraint
language to help us make definitions that go beyond the capabilities of
OWL.  I presented these at the inaugural meeting of the SHAPES group a
couple years ago.  It is easy to specify them in SPARQL, and we have done
so (and I did the same in SHACL, now that there is a write-up of how it
works).

When we move from our conceptual ontology to something operational for a
Proof of Concept, some vendor is always  involved.  That vendor (different
one for each PoC) always has an RDF store somewhere in their stack.  They
can always consume OWL (though often through a rule engine interpretations
via OWL2RL).  For rules/constraints that go beyond OWL, we have to work out
some way to give them the rules.   SWRL?  Some of them can manage that.
RIF?  Everyone knows what it is, but few can handle it out of the box.
Other rule systems have varying degrees of uptake.

But one thing all the triple stores can manage is SPARQL.  "How about if I
give you the constraints in SPARQL?"  the answer is always, "Oh, sure, that
works".  Because they are all triple stores, and they already do it.

This doesn't mean that we have to do this in SPARQL, but it does mean that
if we have that option, we shortcut a lot of work to get to our Proofs of
Concept.

In the end, I'm just re-iterating what Martynas has said much more
succinctly, but in the context of a whole industry effort (FIBO) and a
selection of vendors who want to work with us.



Dean