Re: Closing of open (user story) issues

On 2/4/2015 11:25, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Both S19 and S20 involve tools analyzing the requirements, not tools
> enforcing the requirements.  If these two stories are accepted then the
> working group should specify how these analysis tools will work.  I'm not
> convinced that this should be part of the working group's output.

The requirement to drive user interfaces and other analytical algorithms 
based on declarations in the shapes language had been a major influence 
to the Charter from the beginning.

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/charter

"Human and machine interpretation of shapes to develop or optimize 
SPARQL queries and develop user interfaces."

"Some systems may be able to automatically generate user interface 
elements (eg HTML forms) and/or data bindings based on shapes."

"There may be optimizations in data processing possible when the data is 
known to conform to a single declared shape."

So both U19 and U20 are relevant input to the WG.

Holger


>
> Further, such analysis tools don't need to be run on constraint / shape
> documents.  They can be run on pure open-world ontologies.  For example, the
> OWL axiom
>     >= 1 foo  <=  >= 1 bar
> (everything that has at least one foo also has at least one bar) could be
> interpreted in the way that you suggest.
>
> There could even be two ontologies, as suggested in the story - one for the
> input information and one for the output information.
>
>
> peter
>
>
>
> On 02/03/2015 01:20 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>> S19's connection to constraints is not clear.
>>
>> With S20 it is clearer because it is about creating data which needs to
>> conform to constraints.
>>
>> In this context, one example of a constraint could be "if there is value
>> in this field, then there must be value in that field" such as if a
>> person enters or selects a program name for the "rewards program" field,
>> they must enter their participant's ID number for the program. And
>> vice-versa.
>>
>> The form may need to have this information so that it can
>> enforce/encourage correct data entry without sending data to the server
>> and, in fact, fields may appear dynamically on the form - if a reward
>> program is selected, then the participant's ID field is shown. You can't
>> express such co-dependence of properties in OWL.
>>
>> Irene
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 2:53 PM
>> To: Simon Steyskal; Public-data-shapes Wg Subject: Re: Closing of open
>> (user story) issues
>>
>> You can check to see who raised an issue by looking at its page in
>> tracker. I am the person who raised all these issues.  There has been no
>> notification that I have noticed indicating that any change has been made
>> to any of these user stories.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do think that some of the user stories may have been changed.  I'll
>> summarize my current thinking of the status of each of the relevant user
>> stories here.
>>
>> ISSUE-8 User story S6
>>
>> This may have changed somewhat.  It appears to be asking for partial
>> ontology import.  There is still no connection to constraints or shapes.
>>
>> ISSUE-9 User story S7
>>
>> The creator of this user story agrees that it is a repeat of S4, and can
>> be removed.  I have updated the status.
>>
>> ISSUE-11 User story S9
>>
>> The continuing problem with user story S9 is that it asks for something
>> to exist but not be specified.  It is unclear as to what that means.
>> Discussion on the user story may have cleared up the confusion, but the
>> beginning of the story is still unclear.
>>
>> ISSUE-12 User story S10
>>
>> The description of the story is still very limited.
>>
>> ISSUE-13 User story S12
>>
>> This user story still contains no details as to what is supposed to be
>> happening.
>>
>> ISSUE-14 User story S14
>>
>> This user story still has unresolved discussion.
>>
>> ISSUE-15 User story S17
>>
>> This story is about referring to part of a data set.  The connection to
>> constraints is unclear, even though it talks about shapes.
>>
>> ISSUE-16 User story S18
>>
>> This story is about exporting part of an RDF graph.  It appears to be
>> very similar to S17.  The connection to constraints is similarly
>> unclear.
>>
>> ISSUE-17 User stories S19 and S20
>>
>> User story S19 is about querying to find out what should be in some data
>> as opposed to constraints on what is in the data.  It is unclear what
>> role constraints have in this story.
>>
>> User story S20 is very similar to S19.  It is similarly unclear as to
>> what role constraints have in this story.
>>
>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2015 10:59 AM, Simon Steyskal wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> May I ask the creators of issue:
>>> ISSUE-8 ISSUE-9 ISSUE-11 ISSUE-12 ISSUE-13 ISSUE-14 ISSUE-15 ISSUE-16
>>> ISSUE-17
>>> to check whether their issues were addressed and if so, if those issues
>>> can be closed.
>>> thx, simon
>>
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU0XUdAAoJECjN6+QThfjzdJEIAKTYKrUx6CqmPRy11y27Oe4B
> ZkUIrWSI1dBK1Xb3VyDdSdMmCYIE9iEk7AaH++WX/7EiBiW+ZZsRydTp/0tqFgmf
> 9Z5EPXnK6iBYbC6SwWMyoP4OPeRSksJHAulJYfI2wB5ao97RdVWrWC6Fu+JF2sZ+
> CzZi3Vbjzk7RZh0n0SDVaNugOEB6d8aWbtnxZf3VFE2SWg5Iw/X/Y7Y316Q5U1OZ
> G2sg8DOvc+hGsm0v4boQNCrllqBcw4jnkSwqKvwz0V1oMd7msQzpgme60/U4IgdM
> xqC4Wo8vEtot3Fr/Vwhll88jKZxgWJRfya44JgWe44e8queq0gBIC7NNeyyQMaM=
> =6o0J
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 03:07:52 UTC