W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Request for comments - Requirements analysis

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:41:28 +0100
Message-ID: <535F65B8.40004@apache.org>
To: public-csv-wg@w3.org
Ivan,

I agree; #2 is too strong.  We need to factor in a a reasonable running 
time for the working group (and the charter timeline :-).

Use cases are good for understanding coverage but poor at defining the 
limits (there are always more use cases that reach new communities).

Some kind of prioritization would be ideal but more practically we may 
have to use proceed in the style of #3 and see where we get to.

	Andy


On 29/04/14 08:58, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Davide,
>
> thanks.
>
> I do have a more general issue, though, something that I already touched upon in [1]: what does it mean for us as a group to say that a requirement is 'accepted'. I could see different meanings:
>
> 1. The requirement is valid, in the sense that it is clear what it means, and there are a number of data out there that carry this feature
> 2. Like #1 and, additionally, the WG will consider that item to be a necessary feature to be fully incorporated in everything we do (CSV+, metadata, conversion to other formats)
> 3. Like #1 and, additionally, the WG will consider that item to be mostly necessary, and a 80/20 cut has to be considered whether that feature is incorporated in CSV+, in CSV->JSON, etc.
>
> This discussion came up (in [1]) in relations with the microsytax and its handling in an RDF conversion. If the usage of microsyntax is widely used out there, ie, it is in the 80 of the 80/20 cut, then we probably should put energy into a universal solution for the RDF conversion. However, if it is only in the '20', then we may decide to ignore this (at least in this version), or delegate it to the vague aspect of external machine (JS callback, SPARQL whatever), ie, leave it to the user.
>
> I think we should have a clear idea of what we are doing at this point without making decisions that would bite us later... My feeling is that we need a finer categorization, and not only a binary one.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014Apr/0101.html
>
> On 28 Apr 2014, at 17:38 , Ceolin, D. <d.ceolin@vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Eric, Jeremy and I had a first round of comments about the requirements and came up with a series of proposal, nicely organized by Eric. Please find them on github (in CSV or CLS format):
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/use-cases-and-requirements/csvw-requirements-notes.csv
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/use-cases-and-requirements/csvw-requirements-notes.xls
>>
>> Since we would like to have your opinions, to facilitate commenting, I've also ported the CSV on the wiki (I hope not to create troubles due to duplication of resources):
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Requirements_analysis
>>
>> We look forward to hearing what you all think,
>>
>> Davide
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 08:41:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:39 UTC