- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:05:49 -0800
- To: Simon Steyskal <ssteyska@wu.ac.at>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
We haven't yet finalized the stories, and there are a number of stories that I think need work before they can be used to support requirements, so it might be a good idea to hold off a bit on adding new requirements. The working group does not yet have a mechanism for considering requirements. Until that happens, any new requirements should not be placed any place that might imply incorrect information about their status. peter On 12/11/2014 09:05 PM, Simon Steyskal wrote: > 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 17:06:21 UTC