W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2017

Re: Stating requirements

From: Jaroslav Pullmann <jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:27:49 +0200
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Message-ID: <7c9f-59b7a880-9-70142780@174782598>
Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
  
   Dear Karen, dear all

   while your suggestion makes sense for readability reasons all of the UCR documents considered [1]
 distinguish among a label/ID and the requirement statement itself (even a brief one). When linking to 
 the requirement from the specs or searching within the UCR text we should have a visible requirement 
 identifier (anchor). A lengthy label would surely break the TOC [2]. My personal opinion on labeling and
 structuring: 

 a) retain the short labels (including a requirement identifier for text search)

 b) provide grouping by additional tags (even at requirement level), these would correspond to the "topic"
   (functional group) like "versioning" but allows for arbitrary combination of aspects ("versioning" and "referencing")

 c) provide a customized rendering of the filtered document as stated by action 37 [3]
 
 Here I would very much appreciate suggestions of reasonable display options, e.g. 

      "Show use cases and requirements, full content"
      "Show requirements, text only" ...?

 Such the reader would configure her view of the spec. Our responsibility is to provide the content and appropriate tagging.  

   Best regards
 Jaroslav

    
 [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Comparison_and_analysis_of_W3C_UCR_documents  
 [2] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/ucr/#Requirements
 [3] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/37

 
On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 04:06 CEST, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: 
 
> I'm sorry I missed the last meeting, so I might be repeating something
> that was already said, but... I think it would be helpful if the
> requirement "headings" were stated as requirements. That way we could
> look at the list of requirements and it would make sense. As an example,
> we have:
> 
> ----
> 6.17 Cite datasets
> 
> Provide a way to specify information required for data citation (e.g.,
> dataset authors, title, publication year, publisher, persistent identifier)
> ----
> 
> I would modify this to be something like:
> 
> ----
> 6.17 Provide full citation information for datasets
> 
> Currently missing from DCAT are:
>  - full range of identifiers,
>  - dates,
>  - contributors and
>  - resources supported by [DataCite]
> ----
> 
> (I copied from the use case - that list of missing may not be correct.
> This is just an example.)
> 
> Some requirements are already worded this way, like:
> 
> 6.3 Create a way to list the profiles implemented by a dataset or a
> specific distribution
> 
> If this makes sense, I may be able to make a number of suggestions
> before the next meeting.
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 
 
 
 
-- 
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 Tuesday, 12 September 2017 09:28:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:38 UTC