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

On 12/13/14, 2:51 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I notice that these are all in the "Under Consideration" section.

I moved all new entries from Under Consideration to Unofficial.

My assumption was that all Requirements proposed by WG members are Under 
Consideration. Why would an intermediate step be needed?

Also, most user stories have sufficiently matured so that many 
requirements are crystal clear and well understood, even if the stories 
are not officially frozen yet. In fact, writing the requirements helped 
me remember other relevant stories, so this is potentially an 
interactive process that should be started sooner than later.

I would encourage others to start contributing to that page too, so that 
we can make progress. It's just a Wiki page, not more!

Holger


>
> 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 23:13:28 UTC