- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:39:41 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I am basically done with my input to the Requirements page [1]. I have written down all requirements that I am ready to stand up for, explain and defend (therefore I tagged them with my initials HK). I also went through the DC requirements database and believe most its scenarios are covered, except that I left out everything related to inferencing (the DC database felt like a dump of all OWL features at times). My focus was also on low-level language elements that can be used to build higher-level elements. In particular, I believe if we implement the requirements as listed then it is possible to use them to represent higher-level definitions such as irreflexive properties. Macro mechanisms are covered. Therefore I believe it would be unnecessary to enumerate all OWL features here, as long as they can be expressed in lower-level terms. I welcome others to contribute, too. Once we have a better feeling about what the page will contain, we should discuss what to actually do with all these requirements. Obviously our goal should be to cover as many requirements as possible, as long as the resulting language doesn't become an over-complicated mess. Every requirement proposed by group members should be considered, and introducing yet another intermediate step to filter out certain requirements before they were considered sounds like an unnecessary and potentially harmful step. We could get lost in an over-complicated formal process for the next half a year. I think we should swiftly move from the list of requirements to the solution proposals, because it will be important to look at the implementability and the elegance of the resulting language for those requirements *before* we can decide whether requirements are in scope or not. Holger [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements On 12/13/2014 9:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 Monday, 15 December 2014 04:42:44 UTC