Re: shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what feature is required

On 2/17/2015 3:35, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The bigger problem with S6 is that there is no connection between it and a
> constraint/shape technology.  Without such a connection, why should this
> story remain at all?

I think my comment made already clear that this story did not contribute 
Requirements. The Wiki is just a notepad - the real document is the UCR 
deliverable, and there it should be removed. However I do believe it is 
a useful story as it illustrates how people currently work around the 
"different shapes at different times" problem. So I have moved it into 
its own Wiki page:

     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Partial_Import

and changed the User Stories entry to a placeholder for that page. I 
assume we need to keep the story in the wiki to explain the gap in the 
numbering.

Holger


>
> peter
>
>
> On 02/15/2015 03:48 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> I have contacted Ralph about
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S6:_Partial_ontology_import
>>
>>   and made edits to clarify that this story does not contain constraints
>> and is therefore out of scope as a User Story that produces Requirements.
>> It is rather a possible solution outline for the problem of "different
>> shapes at different times" - a solution that already works and neither
>> requires changes to the languages nor new features.
>>
>> I hope my edits have addressed this ISSUE.
>>
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 12/19/2014 13:06, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what
>>> feature is required
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/8
>>>
>>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider On product:
>>>
>>> Story S6
>>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S6:_Closed-world_recognition_for_e.g._for_partial_ontology_import
>>>
>>>
> is about partial ontology import.  Is this something that needs to be done
>>> for constraints, or is it something that needs to be done in RDF?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU4ipcAAoJECjN6+QThfjzWZcH/2Uv7+S+o2NbzoHa9kyKlfzi
> hfq5QXk5i95zJdhTRK/+kkcJNnCY5FEnOq/FNSqGm65ipRIj2u1zEHABj3Oj28sg
> l3GgJxRX5lQdfTxW13g8e9jw3ValsbyOCFSYfbRV7JBVLttcTXrFj0R3ufR2fghI
> H4xflFXdtRnWrecNAAQjT6V1RvFEfzvOTROq4ZcVmUiVmktB35esBUfo1lRIR+SN
> THcAcHsWrEPtZ1ApxuGo52WbDxdp0LN7umHsKDlx5q6F2duxlz8p/uzIqrd9gUc5
> q2a5yby0fpPGhEXmUACnusZGnf4k6rFMBVURz8Z1fSvM2VQ7FZ1sG9JFkITI0xk=
> =8msD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 16 February 2015 23:52:18 UTC