- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:07:23 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I do not believe in waterfall processes. We run the risk of spending
endless amounts of time up-front on tiny details of the spec. There will
always be somebody who is against something. It is more important to
agree on the big picture (and your "fundamental issues" email is
useful), and many people on this WG seem already overloaded and saturated.
Holger
On 2/13/2015 8:50, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----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 23:08:10 UTC