- From: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:31:39 +0000
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- CC: "public-csv-wg@w3.org" <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Agree with the idea of clustering the requirements. At present, there is no ordering or group at all ... I'm just adding them as they materialise & trying to reference the motivating use cases. I've added the clustering comment as an issue in the doc to remind us to group things as we progress. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: Jeni Tennison [mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com] Sent: 23 February 2014 21:04 To: Tandy, Jeremy Cc: public-csv-wg@w3.org Subject: Organising Requirements Hi Jeremy, Thanks for all your work pulling together the use cases and requirements. Do you think it would be useful to cluster the requirements? Looking at them, I can see: * Parsing, eg requirements around recognising other delimiters * Annotation Types, eg R-PrimaryKey * Metadata Discovery, eg R-PackagingOfMultipleTables * Applications, eg R-CsvValidation * Non-Functional, eg R-ZeroEditCompatibility Regarding the requirement R-PackagingOfMultipleTables, I think the requirement is to annotate a group of tables, not necessarily to package them. In other words, a design in which there was a metadata file that pointed to a group of tables hosted elsewhere on the web would seem to satisfy the requirement from PublicationOfNationalStatistics: they wouldn’t necessarily need to be packaged together (eg in a zip). Also, FWIW, I would only take syntactic requirements from published “CSVs”, not from non-text-based formats like Excel. So, for example, I wouldn’t use the ONS Excel files as demonstrating a requirement to have multiple tables within a single CSV file. Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 09:32:07 UTC