- From: Jaroslav Pullmann <jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:59:01 +0100
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
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
done
> – 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 13–19
> – 6.8.2 introduces "information profile", this should simply be "profile"
done
Thank you for commenting! Best regards
Jaro
--
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