Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec]

On 11/13/2015 7:23, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces):  [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/113
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> The WG charter includes the goal of "Human and machine interpretation of shapes to [...] develop user interfaces."
>
> SHACL includes shapes and constraints.  Most constraints are expected to be property or inverse property constraints.
>
> These SHACL features provide a backbone for the development of user interfaces related to shapes.   UI tools can, for example, use property and inverse property constraints to determine which properties should be part of an input form to create data that conforms to a shape.  Because shapes and contstraints are nodes in RDF graphs they can have extra information associated with them that can be exploited by user interface tools.
>
>
> PROPOSAL:  As the RDF Data Shapes working group does not have sufficient expertise to create a good set of features for UI creation it should stop at providing this backbone and let those who build user interfaces design the information needed for connecting SHACL shapes and constraints to UI tools.   To conform with this sentiment, sh:defaultValue will be removed from the SHACL vocabulary.

The assumption "As the RDF Data Shapes WG does not have sufficient 
expertise..." is incorrect. Furthermore, default values are an approved 
requirement. I'll vote -1 for this proposal and propose to close this 
ticket without action.

Peter, you have made it clear many times that you don't think the 
Charter should have included UI features. But that decision was made 
long ago, so I encourage you to accept other people's view points. I 
have also seen features that I personally don't like and would prefer to 
not have to work on. However, if there is little or no cost involved, 
then this didn't cause me to block others from getting those features. 
In other words: If you don't need the UI features, just ignore them. 
Being destructive about them is only poisoning the working climate in 
the WG.

Holger

Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 02:23:57 UTC