Re: Closing of open (user story) issues

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Agreed.  UI aspects of shapes are part of the WG's charter.  I had forgotten
about this.


I'll mark ISSUE-17 as pending resolution.

peter


On 02/03/2015 07:07 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> On 2/4/2015 11:25, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: 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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU0iAVAAoJECjN6+QThfjzMk4IAKsA8pLkigLXdUXoak3a/yVG
VFUWasXbKoCjKFAC6/TysHqPhrIhAwZL/BNX2ujXQtqT4CY2m5LRiJzsOorBNI/1
llMo3W+5xYG2YSqbhPO7Fa95FT2ohqfzReZDkYu50g1Ow+x/mFGAlBkMIrDvMDXv
PyyQdiT659f7up3hXTgNY2rrB9m6G4w+6lH6kRLcLCbjqeLajpPpB824RFhhJZx9
21vQW5QsGeLxpXtisdiwgc69kgvuAsX2vlIK8k/Odn7Ihal5K3wMT15DwB/uvAkk
9xPVzlKsfLaPE70UacTVb3riqJP3cChVAYr4hVz/BijNGxWgNmQizteS/YhZVKk=
=mQ2D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 13:35:50 UTC