W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > January 2007

Re: [SKOS] Updated Requirement list

From: Daniel Rubin <rubin@med.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:56:01 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>,SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

I regret that I have not been able to attend the tcon this week (and 
next) because of conflicting travel.
The SKOS requirement list looks very good, but I would like to ask 
the communities I've been working with to review it and comment. Is 
this appropriate, and is there a process for collecting feedback on 
the requirements?

At 01:58 AM 1/31/2007, Antoine Isaac wrote:

>Hi all,
>I have updated the current requirement list for SKOS, trying to tkae 
>into account what we discussed during the F2F meeting. 
>Amongst the modifications, some rewording, plus the distinction 
>between accepted ("hard") and candidate ("soft") requirements. There 
>are still a couple of todos about validating some moves (or stays) 
>from one status to the other.
>Feel free to comment, if you have memories fresher than mine or than 
>the meeting minutes'.
>Notice that this list makes extensive reference to the (also 
>updated) issue sandbox I had created for the F2F, which in turn 
>refers to the requirements.http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosIssuesSandbox
>Of course this is not the definitive place where we should handle 
>these issues on a formal basis: for that there will be either the 
>existing (empty) wiki page 
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosIssues or the W3C issue 
>tracker, depending on Jon's choice.
>I just wanted to ease the work of people who have an action on 
>working out specific issues while this choice was not made. The goal 
>is to easily see whether an update on a given issue implies an 
>update on the associated requirement, and to signal it to the 
>requirement editors.
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 14:56:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:48 UTC