- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:59:42 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <201511130359.tAD3xlRU020081@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com>
I wrote on 11/12/2015 07:39:17 PM: > From: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS > To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> > Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > Date: 11/12/2015 07:42 PM > Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-113 (SHACL and user interfaces): [SHACL Spec] > > Holger, > Sorry, but I disagree with your interpretation of the situation. > > First, saying that there is no cost to adding annotations is simply > false. It takes time to agree to every single one of them. Someone > has to propose it, others have to read and understand what they > mean. We discuss them, argue, etc. > > Then unless they are optional, it adds to the implementation burden. > It will take time to develop tests for them (and we already said we > aren't even sure how we would do that), time to gather > implementation reports, etc. > > This is hardly free. > > While I certainly agree with you that it is part of our charter, > this clearly hasn't been much of our focus to date and, given the > amount of time it is taking to address the validation use case which > nobody is interested in, I think it is reasonable for us to postpone This should have read "everybody" obviously. :-) -- Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM Software Group > if not give up entirely on the UI stuff. I'm happy to explain that > to W3M if need be. > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web > Technologies - IBM Software Group > > > Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 11/12/2015 06:23:20 PM: > > > From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> > > To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > > Date: 11/12/2015 06:24 PM > > Subject: 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 04:00:20 UTC