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

The page I created is specifically for requirements that have been approved by 
the working group.  I also added sections for requirements that are under 
consideration by the working group, and a section for proposed requirements 
(which should not have been called Unofficial).

Maybe that wasn't what I was supposed to have done, but that's what I did.

The current version of the page doesn't match what I think the page should be.

peter

On 12/11/2014 02:46 PM, 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 17:01:46 UTC