Re: Stating requirements

 Hello Karen, hello Rob, 

  I suggest to treat these grouping-tags like any other. Later on we might think of 
 a better organization of the tag switches. From the previous postings I gathered the tags : 
  
    - "Profiles": a tag "profile" is already present (identifies the AP deliverable and "anything profile-related")

    - "Versions", to be added

 I have some problems with "Finer grained descriptions of datasets and distributions"
 since this is really vague, and 6.12 is hard to grasp/concretize. Maybe a sign of weak
 requirement quality. There is a separate tag for "semantics", both seems ok for 6.10, 6.11?

 There was the tag "referencing" intended for identification and citation purposes, does it fit?

> Whatever happens, its going to be hard to come up with disjoint categories and groupings 

 The tags allow for multi-aspect groupings and do not force us to find a single hierarchy. 
 I assume that some requirements naturally belong to multiple categories.
  
 Currently the requirements share tagging of their UCs. In order to make the filtering more precise I'd
 suggest to leave the tagging of UCs quite general and add more specific, distinguishing tags to the   
 requirements themselves? 

> move requirements up to top of document
> have the list of UC collapsed by default in the overview

  fine! Let's experiment, both alternatives make sense to me 

  Best regards 
    Jaroslav

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 23:39 CEST, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote: 
 
> Jaro - do we just copy the tag mechanisms and make up new tags for
> requirements groups, re-use existing tags or create a new scoped set of
> tags for requirements and a separate file control.  It would also be nice
> to have the list of UC collapsed by default in the overview - or move
> requirements up to top of document?  IMHO the simple clean requirements
> will be the point of entry, and where we need to work, and the UC almost an
> appendix with further evidence as required.,
> 
> Rob
> 
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 at 00:18 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, Rob. This gives us four groups that we can discuss.
> > Can we give the requirements in these groups a unique tag that we can
> > filter on? That way we all get the same view while discussing them.
> >
> > kc
> >
> > On 9/12/17 3:08 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> > > Hi Karen et al,
> > >
> > > The first batch of requirements have been edited heavily, the second 50%
> > > less so - was trying to get feedback on progress so far because its a
> > > fair bit of work to try to get the requirements both simple and self
> > > explanatory, and not be lots of repetitions of very similar things.
> > >
> > > I have just committed a few edits I had started cleaning up such things.
> > >
> > > For the record, the groupings to review are:
> > >
> > > 6.1 -> 6.4  "Profiles"
> > > 6.5 -> 6.9 "Versions"  (add 6.43 here)
> > > 6.10 -> 6.13 "Finer grained descriptions of datasets and distributions"
> > >
> > > I would like to focus on identification and citation matters as a group
> > > - it kind of overlaps Version perhaps
> > > 6.17 6.22 6.23 6.36?
> > >
> > > Are spatial and temporal extent part of "fine grained semantics" - in
> > > the same way that classifications schemes used in attributes are part of
> > > the fine grained data structure - is this just an expression of the
> > > range of a property of the data?
> > >
> > > Whatever happens, its going to be hard to come up with disjoint
> > > categories and groupings - and I dont want to spend my life justifying
> > > my arbitrary decisions, so I've done a few and lets see whether an
> > > agreed structure falls out looking at the rest please.
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 at 12:06 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> > > <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     I'm sorry I missed the last meeting, so I might be repeating

> > something
> > >     that was already said, but... I think it would be helpful if the
> > >     requirement "headings" were stated as requirements. That way we could
> > >     look at the list of requirements and it would make sense. As an
> > example,
> > >     we have:
> > >
> > >     ----
> > >     6.17 Cite datasets
> > >
> > >     Provide a way to specify information required for data citation
> > (e.g.,
> > >     dataset authors, title, publication year, publisher, persistent
> > >     identifier)
> > >     ----
> > >
> > >     I would modify this to be something like:
> > >
> > >     ----
> > >     6.17 Provide full citation information for datasets
> > >
> > >     Currently missing from DCAT are:
> > >      - full range of identifiers,
> > >      - dates,
> > >      - contributors and
> > >      - resources supported by [DataCite]
> > >     ----
> > >
> > >     (I copied from the use case - that list of missing may not be
> > correct.
> > >     This is just an example.)
> > >
> > >     Some requirements are already worded this way, like:
> > >
> > >     6.3 Create a way to list the profiles implemented by a dataset or a
> > >     specific distribution
> > >
> > >     If this makes sense, I may be able to make a number of suggestions
> > >     before the next meeting.
> > >     --
> > >     Karen Coyle
> > >     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
> > >     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> > >     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
> > <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
> >
> >
 
 
 
-- 
Jaroslav Pullmann
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
User-Centered Ubiquitous Computing
Schloss Birlinghoven | D-53757 Sankt Augustin | Germany
Phone: +49-2241-143620 | Fax: +49-2241-142146

Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2017 23:12:06 UTC