Re: moving the use case document to FPWD

Jeremy....I think I've completed and checked in.    I'm going on to
the other assignments...

:4)      [Eric] tease out and make explicit the requirements in use
cases #7, #12 and #17 ... noting the implied "microsyntax" requirement
in #7.

Thanks,

Eric

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Tandy, Jeremy
<jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
> Hi - in today's teleconf we agreed a number of things to complete for
> Monday.
>
>
>
> 1)      [Eric] add use case #16 City of Palo Alto tree data
>
> 2)      [Eric] add use case #21 Displaying locations of care homes on a map
>
> 3)      [Davide] complete amendments to use cases about "intelligent
> preview" and "representing entities and facts" - see emails here and here.
>
> 4)      [Eric] tease out and make explicit the requirements in use cases #7,
> #12 and #17 ... noting the implied "microsyntax" requirement in #7
>
> 5)      [Jeremy] renumber use cases into sequential order
>
> 6)      [Jeremy] cluster requirements as proposed by JeniT
>
>
>
> We agreed that there were not, at this time, latent requirements from CSV-LD
> or CSV2RDF discussion threads.
>
>
>
> Also, Eric: we previously talked about adding a use case about ncdump
> (netcdf dump). Is this still necessary / feasible?
>
>
>
> Davide: it seems Eric has a lot still to do ... are you able to take action #2
> (adding use case #21 Displaying locations of care homes on a map). Please
> refer to my earlier email for my thoughts on that use case (not much to say
> - but could be helpful).
>
>
>
> I'll do actions #5 and #6 on Monday morning based on the structure of the
> document I see at that point in time - so expect the use case numbers to
> have changed by Monday lunch time!
>
>
>
> Please let me know if I've got any of this wrong J
>
>
>
> BR, Jeremy

Received on Friday, 14 March 2014 08:52:41 UTC