- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 13:49:40 +0100
- To: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, "Lee, Deirdre" <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>
- CC: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
This UC points to R-AccessUptodate Data should be available in an up-to-date manner And R-SLAAvailable Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for industry reuse of the data should be available if requested. These are not a 100% match with IncludeSupportMechanism and IncludeReleaseSchedule. Rather than add new requirements I have extended the definitions a little to: R-AccessUptodate Data should be available in an up-to-date manner and the update cycle made explicit R-SLAAvailable Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for industry reuse of the data should be available if requested (via a defined contact point). If this is insufficient, we can re-open the issue. Phil On 25/09/2014 12:58, Christophe Guéret wrote: > Hi, > > These two sounds like more along the lines of SLA and what industry use > would expect, so "industry reuse" looks like a good place. But this > information will be given as metadata so it could also be a good idea to > put them there as metadata one could expect to find - especially the > industry but everyone else too. > > Christophe > > On 25 September 2014 00:05, Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I'm opening this issue back to the group. 'Use Case #15 - Documented >> Support and Release of Data' sets out two requirements that currently >> aren't included in our requirement list. I therefore propose the addition >> of these two requirements: >> >> >> >> · IncludeSupportMechanism >> >> · IncludeReleaseSchedule >> >> >> >> Feedback on should these requirements be included and in what requirements >> section they should be included (metadata, data access, industry reuse?) is >> appreciated. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] >> Sent: 19 September 2014 13:22 >> To: Lee, Deirdre >> Cc: Bernadette Farias Lóscio >> Subject: Re: W3C DWBP: Request to close Issue 13 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18/09/2014 15:53, Lee, Deirdre wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> In one of the recent Friday telcos and/or on the email list we have >> discussed the following issue that you raised about the DWBP Use Case & >> Requirement (UCR): >> >>> >> >>> ISSUE-13: Improve Use case "Documented Support and Release of Data" >> >>> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/13 >> >>> >> >>> Can you confirm that this issue has been addressed in the updated >> >>> version of the UCR doc, available here: >> >>> http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/blob/gh-page >> >>> s/usecasesv1.html >> >>> >> >>> If you agree, I will close the issue. >> >> >> >> Yes and no. I think it's really about the difference between potential >> requirement and requirement. There is a requirement to include info about >> the update cycle in the metadata, which has now been lost. I think I've >> caused confusion and extra work where I didn't mean to. >> >> >> >> There's a bit of blurred line between a challenge and a requirement. >> >> Both of the challenges listed can be rephrased as requirements. >> >> >> >> How about the challenges as: >> >> Provide information about the management cycle of the data and who is >> responsible for it. >> >> >> >> Requirements: >> >> AccessUptodate >> >> SLAAvailable >> >> >> >> Plus... >> >> >> >> updateCycle (the data update cycle should be included in the metadata) >> >> >> >> contactPoint (contact information for the data provider should be included >> in the metadata) >> >> >> >> WDYT? >> >> >> >> Phil. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Kind regards, >> >>> Deirdre >> >>> Deirdre Lee, Research Associate, eGovernment Group Insight Center for >> >>> Data Analytics, NUI Galway, Ireland >> >>> Twitter: @deirdrelee, Skype: deirdrelee >> >>> Linkedin: >> >>> ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/<http://ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> Phil Archer >> >> W3C Data Activity Lead >> >> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ >> >> >> >> http://philarcher.org >> >> +44 (0)7887 767755 >> >> @philarcher1 >> > > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:50:19 UTC