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

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
> > 
> >