Maintain updated list of SHACL implementations

[VladimirAlexiev]

The official Implementation Report https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-test-suite/ is 5 years old and badly obsolete. validatingrdf/validatingrdf.github.io#14 collected
https://github.com/validatingrdf/validatingrdf.github.io/wiki/Updated-list-of-implementations that is perhaps 3 years newer has these rubrics:

• ShEx validators
• SHACL validators
• Shapes (collections)
• Shape Conversion tools
• Shape Editors, Visualizations
• Declarative UIs

But it has several defects:

• It's quite out of the way and hard to find. It would be a lot more visible and sustainable if it was adopted by the W3C SHACL CG and listed amongst its resources, eg in the Implementation Report
• It is now out of date. I think there are 5-6 newer SHACL implementations missing:
  • Jena
  • https://github.com/zazuko/rdf-validate-shacl and https://shacl-playground.zazuko.com/
  • https://github.com/rdf-ext/shacl-engine
  • https://gitlab.com/allotrope-open-source/shape-editor, which is both an editor and (I think) a validator, and adds some extra features: consider Extra SHACL features #74
  • https://github.com/DataTreehouse/maplib (the SHACL is still private, to be released shortly, claimed to be very performant)
• lacks a couple from https://github.com/semantalytics/awesome-semantic-web#shacl-implementations
• It is not completely filled out (latest version and update date are missing)
• I lacks SHACL Compact implementations, but we have a complete list here: https://github.com/VladimirAlexiev/shacl/blob/shaclc-add-goals-implementations/shacl-compact-syntax/scope.md#implementations
• It is not rendered in a readable way (full width, ability to sort)
• It is a bit hard to contribute to. Maybe it's better to switch to a google sheet?

[tpluscode]

It is a bit hard to contribute to. Maybe it's better to switch to a google sheet?

I wanted to mention an "awesome" list. Maybe we could simply have an "Awesome SHACL" in a repo. Easy to maintain, easy to contribute

[HolgerKnublauch]

Yeah the original impl report was obviously only created to pass the W3C process for SHACL 1.0. Yes it would be great to have a better, living document somewhere.

[VladimirAlexiev]

@tpluscode I like Awesome lists, as soon as we agree to add basic info like latest version and last update date, link to Playground implementation (if any).

• There are a few implementations mentioned at https://github.com/semantalytics/awesome-semantic-web#shacl-implementations
• But that list is very incomplete, so I made a PR add links to SHACL implementations semantalytics/awesome-semantic-web#264 to add a link to here

[VladimirAlexiev]

Turns out that I posted an internal task 3.5y ago. Here are details from that task. Why:

• Updated-list-of-implementations was based on the validatingrdf and updates many times, and now it’s the definitive list on Shapes
• Formatting it as an "awesome" list will make it a lot more popular
• "awesome" is not some stupid marketing slogan, it's a movement to provide excellent lists of resources and surveys on a certain topic.

Task

• Make a git folder, eg https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/awesome-semantic-shapes
  • Note1: I had https://github.com/Ontotext-AD/awesome-semantic-shapes but it's better to use a neutral location.
  • Note2: but I think it needs to be a top-level project to fit the "awesome" list of lists format
  • Note3: it will be about both SHACL and SHEX, so shouldn't be under https://github.com/w3c/shacl/
• take https://github.com/validatingrdf/validatingrdf.github.io/wiki/Updated-list-of-implementations and convert it to the "awesome" format (see below)
• add implementations including validators, shape editors, shape generators, visualization
• Add resources: the book, tutorials, presentations:
• integrate it properly into the "awesome" list of lists https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome = https://awesome.re/ (see tech details below)
• check whether it appears ok in https://awesomelists.top/ (warning: improve search sindresorhus/awesome#1976 (comment) hints that site is not being updated)

Sources:

• the validatingrdf book and Updated-list-of-implementations
• the implementation report
• items from https://github.com/semantalytics/awesome-semantic-web/#shacl-implementations
• search on github for "shacl" and "shex"
  • eg https://github.com/agryman/z-core-shacl-semantics
• https://www.validatingrdf.com/tutorial/swat4hcls22/slides/RDF_ShEx_EntitySchemas_Labra.pdf slide 48 of 140:
  • ShEx implementations : shex.js: Javascript, Apache Jena ShEx: Java, shex-s: Scala (Jena/RDF4j), PyShEx: Python, shex-java: Java, Ruby-ShEx: Ruby, ShEx-ex: Elixir
  • Online demos & playgrounds: ShEx-simple RDFShape ShEx-Java ShExValidata Wikishape
• Lotico 2022 talk - Data Shapes slide 34: by @ericprud and @labra
• Onto Slack channel #shapes

Tech notes

• https://awesomelists.top/ has collected an amazing wealth of such lists. It's driven by https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome and strict content format rules that allow that app to parse the lists:
• https://github.com/dar5hak/generator-awesome-list to generate a skeleton for a list
• https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/blob/main/pull_request_template.md
• https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/blob/main/contributing.md
• https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/blob/main/create-list.md
• https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome-lint to validate a list

[VladimirAlexiev]

@tpluscode can you check https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome to see whether an Awesome list should be in its own repo?

@tpluscode and @HolgerKnublauch what'd be a good location for our awesome list? Maybe https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/awesome-semantic-shapes ?

[HolgerKnublauch]

On the location, I consider the data-shapes repo historic and done. The shacl repo would IMHO be better,

[labra]

I really like the idea of an awesome-semantic-shapes repo and I think if you want to include resources about SHACL and ShEx, it would make sense to call it semantic shapes so it could include resources from both.

I would be happy to contribute or help maintaining it as well.

[amivanoff]

Maybe its better to go with https://github.com/w3c/awesome-semantic-shapes? (if W3C allows it on a top level)

There are some advantages in a 'separate repo' approach:

• Only one responsibility per repository -- easier to contribute from a broader community:
  • no need to clone spec stuff
  • simple repository folders structure
  • no 'not awesome' spec issues (sorry, guys 😊, but it's difficult to focus on awesomeness while being buried under a bunch of with bug reports and enchancement proposals in this, as well as any other 'development repository')
  • no 'not awesome' other pull requests
• More top-level visible 'awesomness'
  • for the W3C if there will be more repos like https://github.com/w3c/awesome-XXX )))
  • for the Semantic Web (Linked Data) community if there will be more repos like https://github.com/w3c/awesome-semantic-XXX )))
• 'awesomness list' lifecycle (continuous and forever thing) decoupled from spec lifecycle (chunked by spec versions)
  • 'awesomness list' should gather as much as possible GitHub stars
    • from all versions of spec
    • from tools and other spec-related things
• It should be even spec-neutral (ShEx/SHACL) as Note3 states

[amivanoff]

Another option is to create a vendor-neutral GitHub organization like 'swcommons' or something similar, separate from w3c. An organizaion, open to all representatives from SW and related vendors and established experts.
Something like https://github.com/mlcommons, but maybe without a non-profit org status at first.

Then it will be https://github.com/swcommons/awesome-semantic-shapes.

[afs]

A working group or a community group can have several repos - the RDF-star working group has one repo per document.

The charter for the SHACL-WG could include the possibility of becoming a "maintenance and new feature" on-going working group after the charter for new work has been completed. This enables errata to be handled in a timely manner.

SHACL issue : #80

It may be possible to put community reviewed, non-specification, material under that group.

It could also be under a Community Group (this repo is owned by the SHACL Community Group; other community groups can be created). The RDF tests maintenance works on this basis.

[VladimirAlexiev]

@pchampin or @iherman can you please make a repo
https://github.com/w3c/awesome-semantic-shapes ?
Give committer (maintainer?) rights to @VladimirAlexiev @labra @HolgerKnublauch @tpluscode

@amivanoff could you please take a first stab at it? Make the structure as per awesomelist and add sections as per my above comment and the "updated list".

Then it will be much easier for me to add content.

[afs]

Remove my name from the owners list.

[VladimirAlexiev]

Removed Andy and added @tpluscode to "owner list".

JS implementations:

• https://github.com/TopQuadrant/shacl-js: reference implementation
• https://github.com/zazuko/rdf-validate-shacl: fork that uses RDF/JS interfaces
• https://github.com/rdf-ext/shacl-engine: optimized version by @bergos . https://www.bergnet.org/2023/03/2023/shacl-engine/ claims 16x better performance than pySHACL and rdf-validate-shacl

[pchampin]

@pchampin or @iherman can you please make a repo
https://github.com/w3c/awesome-semantic-shapes ?

I'm assuming that this repo would be owned by the SHACL CG, correct?
Our new policy is that CG repos live in the w3c-cg organization,
and the creation of new repos should be requested to [email protected] .

See https://www.w3.org/2016/04/cg-support/#what

[ianbjacobs]

Created the repo: https://github.com/w3c-cg/awesome-semantic-shapes

[VladimirAlexiev]

w3c-cg/awesome-semantic-shapes#1 . Mentioned @amivanoff but cannot assign yet.

[amivanoff]

Sorry for mis-posting, I moved questions to a separate issue

• Possible relax of License and Contributors constraints w3c-cg/awesome-semantic-shapes#5