- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:01:07 +0100
- To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
- CC: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>
No need to worry about RFC2119 keywords in this doc. It's not a normative document, i.e. something you can build something and test against, so conformance doesn't apply. I'll remove the usual conformance section before this is published (part of my cleaning up task next week all being well). Phil On 30/05/2014 00:25, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: > Hi Ghislain, > > Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions on the UC document. > Below, we can find some comments: > > > >> b- We might also need to add a matrix table to summarize UCs vs >> challenges/requirements as we had somewhere in the wiki?! >> >> Yes! I think that it is a good idea! > > >> c- I've noticed that the keyword "should" is not properly/or even not >> used in the document according to RFC2119. >> > > Could you please, tell us in wich parts of the document do you think that > this happen? > > >> >> Regarding the use cases: >> 1*- Use case #1* >> In "Propose use of dcat properties dct:accrualPeriodicity and >> dcat:contactpoint", add reference to dcat >> and links to dcat:accrualPeriodicity and dcat:contactpoint. >> > > Ok! We're gonna include this information! > > >> >> 2-* Use case #6* >> +Add technical challenges. Summarize the text under "Current Data >> Summary" to make the technical challenges and/or use to complete the story. >> + Make a link to [ESWC2013] with the reference "Stefan Bischof and Axel >> Polleres. RDFS with attribute equations via SPARQL rewriting. In Proc. Of >> the 10th ESWC, vol. 7882 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), p. >> 335-350, May 2013. Springer". >> > > Ok! We're gonna include this information! > > > >> 3- Q. What to do with UCs without challenges nor requires section? See Use >> Cases #3, #4 #10, #20 ? We might see if they can have at least requirements >> and challenges. >> > > Yes, they should have at least one requirement. > > > Thanks again! > > Cheers, > Bernadette > >> >> >> Cheers, >> Ghislain >> >> > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 12:01:45 UTC