- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:50:11 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I think that it is better to spend more time in the requirements phase than
spending time backtracking over the requirements later.
peter
On 02/12/2015 02:42 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I think we may be confusing Requirements with the details of the actual
> solution (to be done later in the process).
>
> An alternative to splitting may be to leave it vague and add a sentence
> to enumerate some open questions that need to be addressed when the
> details are worked out. I am saying this because the same issue will come
> up in other places (enumerations being one of them, but also the details
> of :valueType and what kind of inheritance to use at property object
> types). Creating a new requirement for each design alternative would have
> us spend forever in the Requirements phase.
>
> Holger
>
>
> On 2/13/2015 6:35, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> +1 to the the split, and my votes are +1 and 0 respectively.
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> PS: A similar issue affects Property Value Enumerations. For
>>> example, is "01"^^xsd:integer valid when the enumeration is {
>>> "01"^^xsd:int }? What about for { "1"^^xsd:integer }?
>> Does it make sense for this to be parallel?
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU3S4jAAoJECjN6+QThfjzysQH/jOaWNBOtChsK9Gcx0RQF/v0
yHUZy5Sapy15SHuQulwMKNbbLu8YXkrLF188wehHTKBVLoIMH/gw64L2hgEb+fqG
r2WlmwV2up7zJPWkUYgNTvr4TXTvzBH0AdaAzMjaZslVoD66NB7+RbzXXGAHrqIV
9xBmsveqrmlB4Zc7Md34evGg/M2s60Kt36tCIU5HSk7qJWvYSHWOdMdSHHAOYkXP
qUDbJI8ZEp7kGCGxjSdRfa4JmrGi57bl399HNrdjg70Sh8Cn3qBW6mLeuzlMbKm4
T/5Nfit1vU/i/xO6ZKJJbNQIjreNXMSkU8K7YwGRrLARmcR/IB0oLVkHSweutM8=
=o/kD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 22:50:40 UTC