Re: Request for comments - Requirements analysis

Would using  the terms "core requirement" and "optional requirement"
be useful?      I'm just thinking that future applications might wish
to incorporate some additional requirements, but it doesn't create a
burden for every application to be compliant to these requirements.

Eric

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
> I think the categorisation should be:
>
>   1. This is not a real requirement or is best merged with another requirement (in which case remove it from the Use Cases document)
>
>   2. This is a real requirement but is either low priority or too complex so we are not going to handle it during the chartered lifetime of the group (list it in the Use Cases document as Deferred or For Later or something similar)
>
>   3. This is a real requirement that we need to make sure we address in the documents we produce (list it in the Use Cases document as an Accepted requirement)
>
> Jeni
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> From: Ivan Herman ivan@w3.org
> Reply: Ivan Herman ivan@w3.org
> Date: 29 April 2014 at 09:04:16
> To: Ceolin, D. d.ceolin@vu.nl
> Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group public-csv-wg@w3.org
> Subject:  Re: Request for comments - Requirements analysis
>
>> Davide,
>>
>> thanks.
>>
>> I do have a more general issue, though, something that I already touched upon in [1]: what
>> does it mean for us as a group to say that a requirement is 'accepted'. I could see different
>> meanings:
>>
>> 1. The requirement is valid, in the sense that it is clear what it means, and there are a
>> number of data out there that carry this feature
>> 2. Like #1 and, additionally, the WG will consider that item to be a necessary feature
>> to be fully incorporated in everything we do (CSV+, metadata, conversion to other formats)
>> 3. Like #1 and, additionally, the WG will consider that item to be mostly necessary, and
>> a 80/20 cut has to be considered whether that feature is incorporated in CSV+, in CSV->JSON,
>> etc.
>>
>> This discussion came up (in [1]) in relations with the microsytax and its handling in
>> an RDF conversion. If the usage of microsyntax is widely used out there, ie, it is in the
>> 80 of the 80/20 cut, then we probably should put energy into a universal solution for the
>> RDF conversion. However, if it is only in the '20', then we may decide to ignore this (at
>> least in this version), or delegate it to the vague aspect of external machine (JS callback,
>> SPARQL whatever), ie, leave it to the user.
>>
>> I think we should have a clear idea of what we are doing at this point without making decisions
>> that would bite us later... My feeling is that we need a finer categorization, and not
>> only a binary one.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-csv-wg/2014Apr/0101.html
>>
>> On 28 Apr 2014, at 17:38 , Ceolin, D. wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Eric, Jeremy and I had a first round of comments about the requirements and came up with
>> a series of proposal, nicely organized by Eric. Please find them on github (in CSV or CLS
>> format):
>> >
>> > https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/use-cases-and-requirements/csvw-requirements-notes.csv
>> >
>> > https://github.com/w3c/csvw/blob/gh-pages/use-cases-and-requirements/csvw-requirements-notes.xls
>> >
>> > Since we would like to have your opinions, to facilitate commenting, I've also ported
>> the CSV on the wiki (I hope not to create troubles due to duplication of resources):
>> >
>> > https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Requirements_analysis
>> >
>> > We look forward to hearing what you all think,
>> >
>> > Davide
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 13:13:44 UTC