- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:03:07 -0700
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
I decided to try answering the questionnaire and gave up, oh, about two questions in. First, nowhere does it say who these "others" are that I am answering for. Anyone in the world? My dog? Folks on a project I'm on? "Intuitiveness?" Nope, not intuitive. The examples weren't helpful, unfortunately. "foaf:mbox IRI+" ? There are some pretty strong assumptions about what the respondents need to know to read the examples, and those should be made clear so as not to waste peoples' time. At least name the notation you are using so people can decide if they should expect to understand the examples. (Same would be true if written as SPARQL queries, btw. "To understand this, you need to be able to read and understand SPARQL queries. If you cannot, please inform the attendant and you will be moved to a different seat.") Basically, if you write your explanations as code you are limiting your audience to those who read that code. You should therefore target your "questionnaire" at those persons, make it clear in the call, and assess the results accordingly. Otherwise, you waste the time of anyone not in your target group. Also note that once it said "clinical informatics" mego. I could come back with something equally alien from my own area of expertise, but is that really necessary? *sigh* kc On 4/16/15 2:00 PM, M. Scott Marshall wrote: >> yet the document doesn't mention that one way to achieve that would be to use SPARQL. > > If you look at the live examples, there are several options to > generate SPARQL (under Translations, on the right), such as for a > "validating query". As I'm sure you are aware, the corresponding > SPARQL is generally much more verbose and therefore not as appealing > to a broader audience - even if they are familiar with SPARQL. The > ShEx demo makes the issues being polled much more concrete and the > questionnaire is made more interesting and dynamic by engaging the > reader through interaction with the examples, mouse-over highlighting, > etc. In my view, if you removed the ShEx from the questionnaire, you > would elicit less feedback. > > At MAASTRO Clinic, we have used the SPARQL generation of the ShEx tool > to validate clinical data from radiation oncology. ShEx serves as a > more concise and human-readable version of the schema than SPARQL > while enabling the application of SPARQL, as I hope is eventually > achievable with SHACL. > > -Scott > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Holger Knublauch > <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> If such things are published on a w3.org address by a W3C staff member who >> is also W3C contact for the Shapes WG, and the page clearly states that this >> will be input to the WG, then at a minimum the WG should have been informed >> about this initiative in advance. Why do we have an ISSUE tracker that >> everyone is supposed to use for important decisions? Why do we have weekly >> meetings? >> >> Having said this, it is always good to collect feedback. Yet by framing the >> questionnaire in certain ways, it is easy to get the answers that you >> intended in advance. For example of course people will say they need >> negation, yet the document doesn't mention that one way to achieve that >> would be to use SPARQL. >> >> Thanks, >> Holger >> >> >> >> On 4/16/15 4:30 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> I am rather disappointed that the questionnaire is so tied to ShEx, >>> particularly considering the subject of the email that went out. >>> >>> As far as I am concerned the only information that the working group will >>> be >>> able to take away from the questionnaire is what people think should be >>> included in ShEx. This may have very little to do with what should be >>> included in SHACL. >>> >>> peter >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04/15/2015 10:09 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >>>> >>>> In some Mayo grant work, I have prepared a questionnaire on the >>>> expressivity of shape expressions. It presents a high-level language for >>>> expressing RDF constraints, explains a number of the technical points, >>>> and asks the user for which features and technical approaches are >>>> important to their work and their view of what will make the language >>>> successful. There are a couple places where you can click for extra >>>> geekiness, in case the baseline geekiness was insufficient. >>>> >>>> I'd like people to fill out the form imagining their immediate uses for >>>> RDF validation as well as those that may come with new markets enabled by >>>> the existence of such RDF validating tooling. The form will record your >>>> results whenever you hit submit so you can easily revisit your answers >>>> after reflection. >>>> >>>> This work is supported in part by a NIH U01 grant – caCDE-QA >>>> (1U01CA180940-01A1). >>>> >>>> On the top of my game here... here's the link: >>>> http://www.w3.org/2015/ShExpressivity >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v2 >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVLq4oAAoJECjN6+QThfjzAuIH/3p+ldIXpinn5b8jLT1AJCsx >>> pqje/nO3bF1YCf9klM4FSlqs6XWexomK+dbyr8DbMORm7u3ez/Z+g1xr07eWRu6U >>> X1GIATSBhASgKjG2fxtc3QYURFi3qw32CyiHe0QmfM9XcoCn9BZnKlClwPOZoimk >>> 7qER0R6AbH+d6aFbvLPYOlOS2w+vtPBA9lpJPjzTby2rR/V+Oz015xag59j9+JDu >>> R/XGVdW9CTG0MZXMIT7ys2LKFjl5nj/F2f55+ZUn9bh5jFbyvb2Lmba2EmbzTjp5 >>> b0ovPTcMemAr1jVXLV+REpGkyMUWp0iFugwi4i446XaI7r6A4Xa6XsO4ucJVVP8= >>> =lQNY >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 00:03:37 UTC