- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:31:43 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I have started adding a few requirements, also to fine tune the format and the benefits of nesting them in a hierarchy: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Declarations_of_Member_Properties_at_Classes On this occasion I slightly adjusted Peter's suggested formatting to use bullet lists and bold face font - to me this looks a bit easier to read. I hope this is OK. Holger On 12/12/2014 8:46, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Hi Peter, > > many thanks for starting this. We can iterate it from here. I just > wanted to confirm a couple of things. > > I notice you have apparently bypassed the concept of a hierarchy > between the requirements, and instead made a top-level categorization > of "Approved" and "Under Consideration". Eric's work had some > top-level nodes such as > > - High-level Language Requirements > - Modularization > - UI Generation > - Foundation > - Reasoning/Inference > - RDF target constructs > - Expressivity > - algebraic > - lexical patterns > - value sets > - cardinality > - negation > - other > - multi-record > - Protocol/invocation > - Implementability > - Translation > - Outreach > - Unclassified > > I am not saying we should follow the above hierarchy, because even > agreeing on such a hierarchy may be too difficult at this stage. So I > guess your structure suggests we simply start collecting and then do a > second pass to organize and regroup requirements. I can imagine the > flat list will quickly be filled with (too) many items. > > Under "Derived from" I assume we also put links to the user stories. > > My suggestion is that anyone can now start adding requirements > following the template used by Peter, using the controlled term > "Derived from" before hyperlinks to details. > > I believe we should also have a category "Tags" which we could use > incrementally to categorize the items. In particular the tags could > contain the ID of the original author of the requirement, so that we > can keep track of who created what if there are questions for > clarification. So, an item could have a line > > Tags: HK > > for requirements that were created by myself. The first tag could be > the author, and other tags can be added later (esp something like > "Expressivity" sounds like a useful tag). > > Holger > > > > On 12/12/2014 7:42, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> Done. See https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements >> >> peter >> >> >> On 12/11/2014 11:40 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker >> wrote: >>> shapes-ACTION-5: New wiki page for requirements (probably only with >>> a few to start) >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/5 >>> >>> Assigned to: Peter Patel-Schneider >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 04:34:42 UTC