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

I would say no, proposed requirements should be examined before they become 
under consideration, just like issues are first raised and then opened and 
then closed.

peter


On 12/12/2014 03:12 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
> 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 23:39:15 UTC