The verbosity isn't a problem as we don't actually write queries in JSON-LD. We use a fluent style in a programming language: currently, either Python or Javascript.
OWL as a schema language is quite rich and well developed allowing multiple-hierarchies and complex constraints. Having a well defined rich schema language for graphs is extremely important, and something that isn't widely available.
I’m not convinced either that a strong schema is really important for a graph database. In fact, even in OOP long chain of inheritance have proven bad practice. I also found myself that working with flat-type (no inheritance) nodes and edges simplify the code a lot.
Is this database used on any deployed project?
It is currently deployed in several industrial settings.
The second very worrying fact is the query language. Not only it’s not using something existing (cypher, gremlin) or the new upcoming Graph Query Language that will unify them, but it uses some ad-hoc JSON-LD. I couldn’t think of a worst idea. Verbosity (reinforced by JSON-LD compared to JSON), no comment possible, usage of the RDF data model, there are many disadvantages for no benefit (except for RDF that can be useful for interoperability in some cases).
Finally the comparison is listing Oracle Database but not MS SQL, which is rather strange given the later has some support for graph and geo queries.