Re: replacement for datatype restriction

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I don't believe that spending time on changes to a primer that may be
describing anything close to the final product of the working group is any
better than spending time on important details of the spec.

peter


On 02/12/2015 03:07 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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: 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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU3TskAAoJECjN6+QThfjzP9kIAIJl2JQZixkYe07bFNGYBDvS
cjJqY88UVF7/IKJ0NtG/7t5lfwoqnQtmWIXypZ/UUy9WWnGe2wARmLHta4/5r2/u
bBSKiclb6ndRgBQB24bfOgSpdwrYz0YVSzakQqYM/0CPphDMMOQimAZlqxx+uYwf
sqzuqGWGcX9XfzkM3Ife7uajodYklYHDkew6JXzTKWYgLm6cJFEFQQZ89bUHiYtM
UPhJ/Kfbd5GUZUUYiJpXxR0zZmYWw7SIeOnUf4U140dOSna3j7Do1/s7odfZtwN/
6it267FzhGbeoCEaG7L8L8YnFFa/vTQbFXUUTCLRULzpkkozOyMWI8OkAR+LQiA=
=exg0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 23:46:09 UTC