- From: Bart van Leeuwen <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:21:05 +0100
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF0110928E.31919AB6-ONC1257EFC.002C4068-C1257EFC.002DEB72@netage.nl>
> 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. Connecting a ontology with a layout IMHO is not something I would use shapes for, neither would I supply shapes with the data, something Fresnel tried as well. In my rather brief 7 year history of building applications around RDF data I very very rarely used only one vocabulary / ontology to describe the resources my applications use. I want a shape to 'shape' a UI according to the data that comes in, most of the time this means that two statements who have no ontological relation do have a specific relation in my application. To save myself from the burden to create a vocabulary / ontology to combine these 2, shapes, as I used them in Resource shape format serve exactly this purpose. If I want to display a form to edit a SKOS Concept but there should be extra options based on the contents of prov:wasGeneratedBy property, e.g. if the concept was created by a barts:importAction I need a different UI. With shapes as I understand it, this would be possible without creating a ontology / vocabulary to match the skos:concept with the prov:wasGeneratedBy for my specific use case. > 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've did exactly the same in my example in the previous mail. > Having such features as a built-in feature of SHACL will IMHO attract a > large audience I agree, talking to a lot of people who are just starting to play with linked data/RDF, shapes is one of the missing links for them to make all this data digestible. Bart > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 08:22:08 UTC