Re: UI/UX snippets

I don't understand this. There is a set of proposed annotation features, 
most of which are already approved. They basically do no harm, have no 
cost for people who don't care, and didn't even take many WG resources 
so far, until Peter started to raise (what he considers) issues.

The validation aspect of the language, however, with all its glory 
details of recursion etc have probably eaten up 95% of WG resources, 
with many difficult problems still to solve. Very few people here can 
claim they have experience, so there is a lot of speculation involved 
about what people actually need.

If we follow that pattern, someone could raise a number of ISSUEs that 
the validation aspects are too difficult to specify and that we don't 
have proper criteria to measure our success in specifying them, so we 
should rather just give up instead of trying. Maybe the chair then 
chimes in with a "compromise" which moves all remaining validation 
topics into a separate, optional, feature.

Is my impression is correct?

Holger


On 11/13/2015 11:18, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> For what it's worth, I have to point out that IBM is interested in 
> having a way to mark a property as read-only, which is something OSLC 
> supports.
>
> Peter is proposing to stick with the bare minimum (which he calls the 
> backbone in ISSUE-113), and in the process he wants to drop 
> sh:defaultValue for which we approved a requirement.
>
> I'm starting to think that a compromise might be to define a small set 
> of such features packaged together as an optional feature, if there is 
> such a set we could agree on.
>
> It's clear to me that we can't afford to go all the way on this, and I 
> have to say that it validates Peter's point last week that there is a 
> lot more that would need to be considered to do a thorough job on that 
> front.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies 
> - IBM Software Group
>
>
> Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 11/12/2015 03:16:41 PM:
>
> > From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> > To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> > Date: 11/12/2015 03:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: UI/UX snippets
> >
> > FWIW I have over ten years of experience on all kinds of UIs for
> > RDF-based data. At TopQuadrant we went through various iterations and
> > redesigns, especially for representing form layouts. The most recent
> > designs to represent form layouts is summarized at
> >
> > http://uispin.org/swa-forms.html
> >
> > I would much rather like to use SHACL for these use cases so that form
> > definitions become proper part of sharing linked data, and not just 
> some
> > proprietary non-standard. When someone publishes an ontology, they
> > should be allowed to propose layouts so that generic software agents 
> can
> > display instances in the most user-friendly way.
> >
> > In addition to labels, comments and defaultValues (all of which are
> > approved requirements), I continue to suggest something like
> > sh:index/sh:order as a low-cost addition.
> >
> > I also believe that having a model-driven way to group together 
> multiple
> > properties (into sections) would be highly desirable. The SWA library
> > above has swa:ObjectsEnum for that purpose, which creates a tree
> > structure that is easy to edit and share. I have just opened ISSUE-114
> > to discuss that aspect.
> >
> > Having such features as a built-in feature of SHACL will IMHO attract a
> > large audience, possibly even companies like Google that display lists
> > of properties from their knowledge graph. Delaying these things to 
> other
> > WGs would cost valuable time. Having said this, there is of course a
> > limit to what we should specify. In SWA we have a library of widget
> > types (drop down boxes etc) but that is rather platform-specific and
> > could indeed grow in 3rd party extensions such as SHACL-UI for HTML.
> >
> > Holger
> >
> >
> > On 11/13/15 6:42 AM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
> > > Towards the UI/UX aspect of things --
> > >
> > > The following might be considered Use Case, might feed more
> > > directly into Requirements, or might be incorporated (no doubt
> > > with substantial rewording) directly into the spec.
> > >
> > > When collecting data (which should conform to a shape), this
> > > is often done via forms, which might be green-screen character-
> > > based terminal interface, full GUI, or somewhere in between.
> > >
> > > Automated generation of such a form is often desirable.
> > >
> > > So...  describing an entity, we know it has some attributes or
> > > properties, each of which is identified by an IRI, which is
> > > generally not very human friendly.
> > >
> > > Associating an rdfs:label with that property gives a "human
> > > friendly version of the IRI" -- so, for instance, foaf:name
> > > gets a nice label of "Name" -- which could be displayed
> > > alongside the text entry field (which the tool knows will
> > > receive a string, because that's the range of foaf:name).
> > >
> > > An rdfs:comment might give a somewhat more fleshed out version,
> > > such as, "the person's full name" or "the full name to be used
> > > for this person", which might be displayed as mouse-over help text.
> > >
> > > A dcterms:description might give a much more detailed version,
> > > which might be displayed upon a click, in a pop-up window, a new
> > > browser tab/window, etc.
> > >
> > > There might be some further attributes, possibly listing all
> > > possible values for the property -- which a UI generator might
> > > use to create a selection menu for a long list (whether there
> > > was to be one selection or many), or a group of radio buttons
> > > for a short list with a single selection, or a group of check
> > > boxes for a short list with multi-selcetion...
> > >
> > > This is not exhaustive, by any means.  One of the things we might
> > > want to do with our next PWD is to call for pointers to UI/UX
> > > ontologies that we might link to -- because reinventing the wheel
> > > is not good, and UI/UX is a huge space, but having some simple
> > > hooks to other people's work can benefit us all.
> > >
> > > I hope that's helpful to the process.
> > >
> > > Ted
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > A: Yes. http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html
> > > | Q: Are you sure?
> > > | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> > > | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
> > >
> > > Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //             voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
> > > Senior Support & Evangelism  // mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
> > >             // http://twitter.com/TallTed
> > > OpenLink Software, Inc.      // http://www.openlinksw.com/
> > >           10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
> > >       Weblog   -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
> > >       LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
> > >       Twitter  -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
> > >       Google+  -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/
> > >       Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
> > > Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology 
> Providers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>