Query & Results Screens

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Owen Ambur

unread,
Sep 29, 2022, 3:44:03 PM9/29/22
to nsa...@epicomm.net, aboutthe...@googlegroups.com
Naval, here are my thoughts on the updated wire frames:
  1. The full text search field should be labeled "Full Text Search" or perhaps "Search Full Text".
  2. The specific element search fields should be labeled "Find Goals/Objectives" | "Find Stakeholders" | "Find Values" and the grayed out text in the search fields themselves should read: "Enter Goal/Objective Name" | "Enter Stakeholder Name" | "Enter Value Name".
  3. Users don't need to know that both the Name & Description elements are being queried, and including "Description" in the label implies that phrases and sentences can be entered as query terms.  While there should be nothing to prevent users from doing that if they choose, the idea is for them to enter a single word.  
  4. It would be good if the label above the search results listing were to include the word or phrase on which the query has been conducted, e.g., "Search Results for Education".
  5. In the basic Search Results listing, it seems to me that the only text that should be returned is the Description of the Goal/Objective along with the Name of the Organization compiling the plan, i.e., two columns plus the hyperlink icon, whose column should be labeled "View".  The Description column should be the widest.
  6. The exceptions would be when the user is querying *only* the Stakeholder or the Value element, in which case the Description for that element should be displayed along with the Name of the Organization.
  7. When only Stakeholders or Values are being queried, one complication is that the hyperlinks cannot point directly to them in the styled renditions of the documents because, unlike Goals & Objectives, Stakeholders and Values do not have GUIDs.  
  8. In the case of Values, a work-around would be to link to the Values section, like this
  9. Exactly how to deal with Stakeholders may be a bit more complex, since they may appear in three places -- under Organization, Goal, or Objective. Here's an example.
  10. Another complication is what to display in the search results list if both Values and Stakeholders are queried at once but without querying Goals/Objectives as well.  In that event, it might make sense to display the Organization Name and the Mission statement (in the Description column).
No doubt, there will be other complications and issues to be worked out as well, but I hope these thoughts are clear and meaningful in the meantime.



-----Original Message-----
From: Naval Sarda <nsa...@epicomm.net>
To: Owen Ambur <Owen....@verizon.net>
Sent: Thu, Sep 29, 2022 9:28 am
Subject: Fwd: Keyspaces &/or DynamoDB for StratML Query Services?

Please see below


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Keyspaces &/or DynamoDB for StratML Query Services?
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:21:05 +0530
From: Sudarshana <sudar...@epicomm.net>
To: Naval Sarda <nsa...@epicomm.net>, Jitendra Shende <jite...@epicomm.net>, Balasaheb Pandarkar <balas...@epicomm.net>


Please see inline comments in blue color.
On 9/29/2022 4:24 AM, Naval Sarda wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Keyspaces &/or DynamoDB for StratML Query Services?
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:40:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: Owen Ambur <owen....@verizon.net>
Reply-To: Owen Ambur <owen....@verizon.net>
To: nsa...@epicomm.net <nsa...@epicomm.net>
CC: aboutthe...@googlegroups.com <aboutthe...@googlegroups.com>


Good progress, Naval.  Here are my initial thoughts on your updated screen shots/wire frames:
  1. It seems to me that it would be good to combine each of the two search fields for Goal/Objective, Stakeholder, and Value into one so that the simple seach screen includes only three fields. Changes made in mockups. Please refer screenshot attached.
  2. Ideally, it would be good if the user could decide to query only one or two or all three of those fields at once.  However, that may be more technical complexity than we should take on initially. We will manage that programatically.
  3. Regarding the query results screen, I assume the pencil icon indicates an edit link, which is not feature I'd like to include in the basic query service.  However, at some point, I would not be adverse to providing such feature that opens the file in my XForm for editing and saving locally.  I don't want to get into the business of managing UIDs & passwords for authorizing edit access to the database. Removed pensil sign. Please refer screenshot attached.
  4. With respect to the column headings, we'll need to give them further thought but the share of screen space devoted to the Description element should be increased.  That information will be the primary means by which users will determine which of the results they may wish to view in context of the documents in which they occur.Column size for 'Description' field has increased. Please refer screenshot attached.
  5. Depending upon which of the elements the user has queried, it should not be necessary to show that element in the column heading.Ok. We will show only those columns which you are interested for.
  6. I assume the green down arrow designates a download feature, which may be OK, but if there is an icon that indicates viewing/opening a hyperlink, that would be better.  Yes green is for download and we have added view/hyperlink button also. Please refer screenshot attached.
  7. In that regard, one issue to be addressed is the fact that my sitemap listing references the plain XML text renditions whereas the styled renditions should be presented when clicking on links in query results listings. Ok
  8. In some cases, PDF renditions are also available but they do no permit direct referencing of the queried elements, which is the primary purpose of the query service. Ok
BTW, Hilton Head Island is directly in the currently projected path of hurricane Ian.  While we're currently in the North Carolina mountains, we've been scheduled to head home on Friday but will probably need to delay our return and will be a bit unsettled for the next few days.
Please take care of yourself and family.



-----Original Message-----
From: Naval Sarda <nsa...@epicomm.net>
To: Owen Ambur <owen....@verizon.net>
Cc: aboutthe...@googlegroups.com <aboutthe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 28, 2022 10:57 am
Subject: Re: Keyspaces &/or DynamoDB for StratML Query Services?

Hi Owen,
We have designed another basic search screen. Please see attached.  We can further refined the same based on your instructions.
Thanks for providing the information below which tells us which all tags and section needs to be searched behind the scenes. It is really helpful.

We will get back to you about advance search screens.

Naval

On 27/09/22 8:09 pm, Owen Ambur wrote:
Naval, as summarized under the Query/Discovery goal in my technical development plan, the basic query service should enable searches of these elements of the schema:
  1. Stakeholder Name & Description
  2. Goal & Objective Name & Description
  3. Value Name & Description
While those are the elements of the "basic" search capability, please note that it is not exactly "simple" because:
  • The Stakeholder element occurs at three levels of the schema -- Organization, Goal & Objective.
  • Since the only distinction between Goal and Objective is a matter of timing, it makes sense to query those elements together.
  • Similarly, since the queried term may occur in either the Name or the Description, it might make sense to combine queries of those two elements together as well.  For the goal/objective query, that means searching four elements at once: 1) Goal Name, 2) Goal Description, 3) Objective Name, and 4) Objective Description.
More advanced query capabilities will enable such things as faceted searches, e.g., searching for goals/objectives associated with particular stakeholders.



-----Original Message-----
From: Naval Sarda <nsa...@epicomm.net>
To: Owen Ambur <owen....@verizon.net>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2022 12:28 am
Subject: Re: Keyspaces &/or DynamoDB for StratML Query Services?

Hi Owen,
For the search fields, we checked the plan again. But we were not able to figure out the search fields needed for basic and advance search. If you can just copy and paste the same in the email, it will be great.
Naval
On 24/09/22 8:24 pm, Owen Ambur wrote:
Naval, I always enjoy having the opportunity to virtually meet those with whom I have established potentially productive relationships and I'll be happy to join you in a televideo conference when convenient for both of us.

Please be aware, however, that my hearing is not great and I have a hard time understanding Pradeep on our televideo conferences.  Also, I wouldn't want progress to be held up until we can find a time that is mutually convenient for an synchronous meeting of the minds.

So from that perspective E-mail works better for me.  It also seems to me that your usage of it has enabled you to make more rapid progress than he has.

On the other hand, it would be great if we could all work together, with each of us adding the value accommodated by our own interests and expertise.  So I'd welcome the chance to have joint televideo conference with both of you.

I'll be especially interested to learn what it is about my plan that is still unclear.  To the degree that it needs to be further fleshed out, I'd rather do that than merely talk about it.  It contains mailto Comment links to facilitate such focused dialog.

BTW, you can check out what Pradeep has done in the past at https://stratml.us/#Ictect



-----Original Message-----
From: Naval Sarda <nsa...@epicomm.net>
To: Owen Ambur <am...@verizon.net>; pradee...@ictect.com <pradee...@ictect.com>; jo...@vionta.net <jo...@vionta.net>
Sent: Fri, Sep 23, 2022 8:57 am
Subject: Re: Keyspaces &/or DynamoDB for StratML Query Services?

Hi Owen,
We need to get on call once you are back from your vacations so that we can understand your needs better.
Naval
On 23/09/22 1:41 am, Owen Ambur wrote:
Naval, Pradeep & Jorge, while I hope that we can build on experience with BaseX, I am also open to exploring other alternatives.

I don't understand the pricing implications of AWS Keyspaces.  However, I suspect that usage of a StratML query service might initially be pretty low, and if it scales up to become costly under those pricing conditions, that might indicate the potential for profitably enaging paying customers.

Keyspaces came to my attention via a posting on LinkedIn by Jason Hunter, who spent >17 years with MarkLogic and is now Principal Solution Architect for DynamoDB.  I don't understand its pricing implications for it either and would be hesitant to take on a "free" account without knowing what the costs might turn out to be.

--
Thanks & Regards
Sudarshana

Owen Ambur

unread,
Oct 1, 2022, 2:02:00 PM10/1/22
to nsa...@epicomm.net, aboutthe...@googlegroups.com
Lookin' good, Naval.

In the revised wire frames, the only editorial suggestion that I'd reiterate is to label the column with the hyperlink icon in the search results list "View" instead of "Action".  (If we decide to provide an Edit option later, we could add another column for that purpose but it might make more sense to enable that option after the document has been presented in view-only mode.

My thought has been that we should defer the advanced search capabilities till later but I defer to your expertise and judgement on whether they can be accmmodated without much extra effort.

With reference to item 3, no, unless it were necessary for system performance reasons, I would not want constrain the terms that users can enter for queries.

Regarding item 7, it has been my intention that clicking on the hyperlink in the search results listing will take users directly to the element within the context of the source of the plan/report wherever it resides on the Web.  However, as you suggest, it would also be good to enable reassembly and styling of the documents from their content stored in the query service database.

In the event the latter is the first or only option, it would be good to include a notice providing a link to the original XML source.  While the intent is that the XML sources will eventually be the authoritative sources, that is not the case with the documents in the existing StratML collection.  They have all been copied from other sources and the URLs are included in the <Source> element.

I hope building the query service will be as easy as it sounds like it might be.  I'm anxious to see how well it works.

What's the next step?

BTW, we just got back home from a week in the North Carolina mountains.  Thankfully, there was no particular damage here on Hilton Head Island from hurricane Ian.  We'll be here a week and then heading to my 50th college reunion in South Dakota for the week after that.
-----Original Message-----
From: Naval Sarda <nsa...@epicomm.net>
To: Owen Ambur <Owen....@verizon.net>
Sent: Fri, Sep 30, 2022 10:28 am
Subject: Fwd: Query & Results Screens

Please see below


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Query & Results Screens
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:46:54 +0530
From: Sudarshana <sudar...@epicomm.net>
To: Naval Sarda <nsa...@epicomm.net>
CC: jitendras <jite...@epicomm.net>, Balasaheb <balas...@epicomm.net>


Please go through the inline comments in BLUE color and share your thoughts.
On 9/30/2022 9:51 AM, Naval Sarda wrote:
Naval, here are my thoughts on the updated wire frames:
  1. The full text search field should be labeled "Full Text Search" or perhaps "Search Full Text". Changes made, please refer attached screenshot.
  2. The specific element search fields should be labeled "Find Goals/Objectives" | "Find Stakeholders" | "Find Values" and the grayed out text in the search fields themselves should read: "Enter Goal/Objective Name" | "Enter Stakeholder Name" | "Enter Value Name". Changes made, please refer attached screenshot.
  3. Users don't need to know that both the Name & Description elements are being queried, and including "Description" in the label implies that phrases and sentences can be entered as query terms.  While there should be nothing to prevent users from doing that if they choose, the idea is for them to enter a single word.  Changes made in screenshots, please refer attached screenshot. We can programatically prevent user from typing more than one word. If you want we can do that.
  4. It would be good if the label above the search results listing were to include the word or phrase on which the query has been conducted, e.g., "Search Results for Education". We can do that.
  5. In the basic Search Results listing, it seems to me that the only text that should be returned is the Description of the Goal/Objective along with the Name of the Organization compiling the plan, i.e., two columns plus the hyperlink icon, whose column should be labeled "View".  The Description column should be the widest. OK
  6. The exceptions would be when the user is querying *only* the Stakeholder or the Value element, in which case the Description for that element should be displayed along with the Name of the Organization. OK
  7. When only Stakeholders or Values are being queried, one complication is that the hyperlinks cannot point directly to them in the styled renditions of the documents because, unlike Goals & Objectives, Stakeholders and Values do not have GUIDs. Even though the Stakeholders or Values or any other field is queried, result displayed will be the one XML per row and we will create styled xml for that record to render on screen.  So that will not be the problematic.
  8. In the case of Values, a work-around would be to link to the Values section, like this. OK.
  9. Exactly how to deal with Stakeholders may be a bit more complex, since they may appear in three places -- under Organization, Goal, or Objective. Here's an example. Again same answer for this like point number 7
  10. Another complication is what to display in the search results list if both Values and Stakeholders are queried at once but without querying Goals/Objectives as well.  In that event, it might make sense to display the Organization Name and the Mission statement (in the Description column). When more than one fields are queried then result will be the combination of both fields. Means those records will come in search result for which Value and Stakeholders both are equal to the quieried values. Same logic will be applied to all other fields.
Herewith we have attached screenshots for both search types. Basic search and the advanced search. In basic search we have made all those changes which you suggested in last email.
In advanced search as you asked in last email that you want to search for Goals/Objectives associated with particular Stakeholders, we tried to design screen accordingly. We thought that first user will start typing in stakeholders field, as he types he will get suggestions at the bottom. He can choose multiple stakeholder. Then when he start typing in goals/objectives, he will get suggestions with only stakeholders associated goals/objectives. Again user can choose multiple goals/objectives.
  1. No doubt, there will be other complications and issues to be worked out as well, but I hope these thoughts are clear and meaningful in the meantime. You can share all your concerns, we will try to analyse that all.

Naval Sarda

unread,
Oct 3, 2022, 9:55:41 AM10/3/22
to Owen Ambur, aboutthe...@googlegroups.com

Hi Owen,

Please see updated basic search screen as attached.

For now, we can skip advance screen screen.

We will work on estimates and get back to you with estimates as soon as they are ready.

Naval

StartMLBasicSearch.png

Owen Ambur

unread,
Oct 3, 2022, 9:48:48 PM10/3/22
to nsa...@epicomm.net, aboutthe...@googlegroups.com
Naval, I'll look forward to seeing your cost estimate, bearing in mind that I'm looking for a minimally viable query service at this point, with additional capabilities to be provided after we're confident the initial service is working well and as intended.

BTW, w/re the image below, isn't the top "Search" field redundant, i.e., the same as the "Full Text Search" field?  

And shouldn't the Advanced Search button be left out until we're ready to activate it?  

The word "Filter" could also be left off but I'll want to include some minimal introductory text along the lines currently presented at https://aboutthem.info/  

Of course, that text should be modified to reflect the current status and future plans for the site once the initial search service is activated.  It should probably include verbiage something like this:  "The search fields can be used individually or in any combination.  Querying more than one of those elements will narrow the search results accordingly."
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages