- From: Simon Steyskal <ssteyska@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:05:45 +0100
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hi! Looks great, thanks Peter & Holger. So how we want to proceed on this? Anyone can add(propose) requirements which she/he thinks are justified by user stories? simon --- Dipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys Am 2014-12-12 05:31, schrieb Holger Knublauch: > 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 05:41:59 UTC