Consider switching from shaclex to shacl-s
berezovskyi opened this issue · comments
According to weso/shaclex#492 (comment)
Given that Lyo is already dependent on Jena, why not use the Jena SHACL implementation?
@jaw111 validation library for Lyo was written when Jena had no support for SHACL (ca. in 2017-2018). shacl-s is a dependency of shaclex and the change should be minimal in code change and reduce the number of dependencies. Switching to Jena SHACL library is a good idea but may require more code rewrite. I don't have plans for such rewrite now as I am not really active in Lyo for the time being. If you wish to contribute, please sync with @Jad-el-khoury to make sure no effort is wasted and you have a smooth experience with a first-time contribution.
Maybe deprecate using the jaw111 library in favor of SHACL to give time to remove it?
@jamsden, both the current and proposed lyo validation libraries would be based on SHACL. John aka jaw111 was suggesting to switch to Jena all the way and eliminate shaclex to deliver the same SHACL support.
Again, like the idea but don't see myself doing the migration, unfortunately. If I get any spare time these days, I usually spend it on bringing the oslc4net SDK to life.
All contributions are welcome. I have not seen the need for the validation library, and that's why it has not been updated.
But I agree that it would make sense to migrate to Jena's.