Re: shapes-ACTION-5: New wiki page for requirements (probably only with a few to start)

I notice that these are all in the "Under Consideration" section.

I was hoping that the working group would adopt a mechanism that would not 
allow working group members to automatically put proposed requirements under 
consideration, but that instead explicit approval would be needed from the 
working group to place requirements under consideration.

Also, the added requirements have derived-from information that is very 
different from the derived-from information that I added.   This new kind of 
information needed a different tag, I think.  Also, there needs to be links to 
whatever is being referenced, not just simple text tags.

I would much prefer it if these requirements were moved into the unofficial 
section, at least until the working group has a chance to review what I did in 
response to my action.

peter


On 12/11/2014 08:31 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 16:51:56 UTC