- From: Yaso <yaso@nic.br>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:20:43 -0200
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Hi Lewis, On 12/5/14 1:14 PM, Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I spoke too late on this weeks WG call and I think my comment was misinterpreted (or not interpreted at all) so I thought it would be best put here in an attempt to better communicate the point. > > My point comes at a good time, when Deirdre is asking Use Case proposers to associate Use Case Requirements [0] with their proposed Use Case(s). > My issue here is that I never understood in the first place what the requirements actually were. I still am oblivious as to what some of them really are (of course I can make educated guess). My reasoning for this is that I cannot for the life of me find any documentation to suggest each ‘Requirement’ is accompanied with documentation description to provide context on it’s naming and purpose. > > An example is the requirement “SLAAvailable”. I assume that this is Service Level Agreement, however some people may not know this. Another is “DesignatedThingsServiceProviders”. For this one I am still unsure/ignorant of what it actually means. > > I ‘meant’ to address the issue of providing context for each and every requirement tag at the TPAC, however I missed the entire TPAC event so this did not happen. In light of this, I would like to clarify a number of things > > * Does a contextual description exist for each requirements at [0]? > * If so then where? > * If not then I would like to open an issue to gather such descriptions and bind them to the requirements. This provides us with sound justification as to why requirements are subsequently associated with a particular use case. It also embeds more credibility into the best practices working draft document as it displays evidence of clear logic behind included use cases. > At a first look, it seems a good idea. My only proviso is that each clarification can be mistaken as a Best Practice, since we already have something similar at the "Requirements for Data on the Web Best Practices". I totally agree that (at [0]) there is lack of meaning for each requirements, if I understood correctly your considerations. I'm thinking in how can we merge the two pages to help a human to better understand the correlation between the 2 documents. So, feel free to open an issue at the tracker, please. best, yaso [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-dwbp-ucr-20140605/#requirements-for-data-on-the-web-best-practices > Thanks to anyone able to provide me with any answers for the above. > Lewis > > [0] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Use-Cases_Requirements_RDF#Potential_requirements > > Dr. Lewis John McGibbney PhD, B.Sc., MAGU > Engineering Applications Software Engineer Level 2 > Computer Science for Data Intensive Systems Group 398M > Jet Propulsion Laboratory > California Institute of Technology > 4800 Oak Grove Drive > Pasadena, California 91109-8099 > Mail Stop : 158-256C > Tel: (+1) (818)-393-7402 > Cell: (+1) (626)-487-3476 > Fax: (+1) (818)-393-1190 > Email: lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov > > [cid:D18F285A-F5B4-4C2C-9DB6-05FD47F74316] > > Dare Mighty Things > -- Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br W3C Brazil Office @yaso 55 11 5509-3537 (4025) skype: yasocordova
Received on Monday, 8 December 2014 17:21:19 UTC