Re: Clarification on Requirements

Hi Lewis,

On 12/5/14 1:14 PM, Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I spoke too late on this weeks WG call and I think my comment was misinterpreted (or not interpreted at all) so I thought it would be best put here in an attempt to better communicate the point.
> 
> My point comes at a good time, when Deirdre is asking Use Case proposers to associate Use Case Requirements [0] with their proposed Use Case(s).
> My issue here is that I never understood in the first place what the requirements actually were. I still am oblivious as to what some of them really are (of course I can make educated guess). My reasoning for this is that I cannot for the life of me find any documentation to suggest each ‘Requirement’ is accompanied with documentation description to provide context on it’s naming and purpose.
> 
> An example is the requirement “SLAAvailable”. I assume that this is Service Level Agreement, however some people may not know this. Another is “DesignatedThingsServiceProviders”. For this one I am still unsure/ignorant of what it actually means.
> 
> I ‘meant’ to address the issue of providing context for each and every requirement tag at the TPAC, however I missed the entire TPAC event so this did not happen. In light of this, I would like to clarify a number of things
> 
>   *   Does a contextual description exist for each requirements at [0]?
>   *   If so then where?
>   *   If not then I would like to open an issue to gather such descriptions and bind them to the requirements. This provides us with sound justification as to why requirements are subsequently associated with a particular use case. It also embeds more credibility into the best practices working draft document as it displays evidence of clear logic behind included use cases.
> 

At a first look, it seems a good idea. My only proviso is that each
clarification can be mistaken as a Best Practice, since we already have
something similar at the "Requirements for Data on the Web Best Practices".

I totally agree that (at [0]) there is lack of meaning for each
requirements, if I understood correctly your considerations. I'm
thinking in how can we merge the two pages to help a human to better
understand the correlation between the 2 documents. So, feel free to
open an issue at the tracker, please.

best,
yaso


[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-dwbp-ucr-20140605/#requirements-for-data-on-the-web-best-practices




> Thanks to anyone able to provide me with any answers for the above.
> Lewis
> 
> [0] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Use-Cases_Requirements_RDF#Potential_requirements
> 
> Dr. Lewis John McGibbney PhD, B.Sc., MAGU
> Engineering Applications Software Engineer Level 2
> Computer Science for Data Intensive Systems Group 398M
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory
> California Institute of Technology
> 4800 Oak Grove Drive
> Pasadena, California 91109-8099
> Mail Stop : 158-256C
> Tel:  (+1) (818)-393-7402
> Cell: (+1) (626)-487-3476
> Fax:  (+1) (818)-393-1190
> Email: lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov
> 
>            [cid:D18F285A-F5B4-4C2C-9DB6-05FD47F74316]
> 
>  Dare Mighty Things
> 


-- 
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br
W3C Brazil Office
@yaso

55 11 5509-3537 (4025)
skype: yasocordova

Received on Monday, 8 December 2014 17:21:19 UTC