- From: Lars G. Svensson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:05:32 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle scripsit: > where do you stand on the question of constraints vs validation rules? Do you see them as the same thing, or different? _In this context_ I'd say that validation rules and constraints are the same thing (it's about constraining the set of possibilities). In order not to confuse them with OWL constraints (a different kind of beast) we'd probably better just use the term "validation rules" and not talk about "constraints". > And do we include written rules in non-actionable documents, as in the DCAT-AP PDF, or must constraints be implementable? Here I'm with @rob-metalinkage that we "include constraints expressed in non-actionable documents". > All constraints should be testable - even if it is manual inspection. Here I agree, too (when we do requirements review I usually keep asking how to test that the requirement is fulfilled) although that can be difficult without deeper knowledge of the data being tested. Karen's example of "mandatory if applicable" is such a case: If something is applicable usually differs from institution to institution (or from application to application). -- GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/449#issuecomment-428166378 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:05:39 UTC