Re: Requirements (was Re: Role of SPARQL)

I guess the desired process is

     User Stories -> Requirements -> Solution Architecture -> Solution 
Details

We already have bits of every step and believe we could proceed swiftly 
if we only dedicate enough time. (Here I sometimes wonder who among the 
27 Participants is really willing to contribute).

Maybe a first step (to make some progress) would be to dump Eric's data 
into a Wiki page, and then cross-link them with User Stories where each 
requirement is needed. (I know the collapsible JavaScript tree that Eric 
built has some merits but we need something that we can edit 
collectively). The owner of each User Story could then get a formal Task 
to ensure that their requirements are covered.

Holger


On 11/25/2014 15:25, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 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_ <mailto: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
>
>
>