Re: UI/UX snippets

On 11/13/2015 18:21, Bart van Leeuwen wrote:
>
> > 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.

Yes, that's perfectly fine. I only mentioned publishing forms with an 
ontology as one possible use case among others.

>
>
> 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.

Yes that can be achieved with a sh:scope, e.g. stating that you want 
Shape1 to apply for all instances where ?this prov:wasGeneratedBy 
barts:importAction.

Holger


>
>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >