Requirements (was Re: Role of SPARQL)

Hi Holger,

I think we need to resume working on requirements. We had a good start at 
the face to face meeting. We need to continue. We can keep polishing the 
user stories in parallel.

I know you think this is all too slow but standards making is never fast. 
It takes time to get everybody on the same page. It's much easier to 
develop a solution for yourself.

On the requirements we need to start building the list of requirements we 
agree on. I'd think that we could start with a wiki page, like we did with 
user stories but I don't know how to deal with Eric's data and the Dublin 
Core's. Eric?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM 
Software Group




From:   Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
To:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Date:   11/24/2014 05:25 PM
Subject:        Re: Role of SPARQL



Hi Arnaud,

out of curiosity, do you have some rough idea about when we will have 
sufficient user stories so that we can take the next steps?

Thanks
Holger


On 11/25/2014 11:20, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
deanallemang@gmail.com wrote on 11/24/2014 12:29:38 AM: 

> ... I 
> guess I am disagreeing with the suggestion from Arnaud to specify 
> this without reference to a technology; I think that referring to 
> SPARQL in particular buys us a lot.  

To clarify, I'm not suggesting we specify our solution without reference 
to a technology. What I'm saying is that I don't know that we can say that 
the reference technology should be SPARQL without knowing what our 
solution might look like. Depending on the approach we choose something 
else than SPARQL might be more appropriate. Saying now that whatever we do 
has to be defined in SPARQL reduces our choices. 

In line with what Peter said, this seems premature. 
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM 
Software Group