Re: UCR hard deadline

  Hello Ruben,

>  in 6.8.1, items 9 and 15 seem to overlap (parents being a specific case)

  #9 links now at least links to #15

>  in 6.8.1, item 10 seems overly specific and can probably be combined with 9

  #9 is concerned with profile hierarchies, #10 seems to focus on traceability of constraints,
  so implies a different requirement. At moment I'd leave them separate.

>  in 6.8.1, item 16 is too strict. Either make it "may" or "should", or remove it

  done: "should" (fits better for purposes of guidance)

>  in 6.8.1, the remark at the end of 19 should probably be removed


>  In 6.8.1, as discussed during the F2F, I think we don't sufficiently differentiate between the profile as a concept (e.g., "a profile for author metadata") versus the document that expresses the constraints (e.g., "authors have one last name"). We could have a requirement for "Definition of the concept 'profile'", and a separate requirement for "Representation of a profile" (which could be 6.8.4). Looking at the list in 6.8.1, the following items would be part of the second requirement: 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19
>  in 6.8.4, "profile information" is probably not the good term. I think we should use "representation".

  done, indicated requirements moved into "Profile representation" [RPFRP]

>  (editorial) copy/paste error at the end of 6.8.1 13
>  (editorial) inconsistent capitalization in 6.8.1 1319
>  6.8.2 introduces "information profile", this should simply be "profile"


    Thank you for commenting! Best regards

Jaroslav Pullmann
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
User-Centered Ubiquitous Computing
Schloss Birlinghoven | D-53757 Sankt Augustin | Germany
Phone: +49-2241-143620 | Fax: +49-2241-142146

Received on Monday, 4 December 2017 13:00:36 UTC