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

Re: Stating requirements

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:12:15 -0500
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <b95f7626-6d46-f93d-6a03-c31f810eb506@kcoyle.net>
Jaro,

I think the grouping by short labels followed by detailed requirements
makes good sense. At the moment, though, we don't seem to have a
separation between labels and requirements, so perhaps this a good place
to start. I will try to find time (I'm traveling) to provide some more
concrete suggestions.

kc

On 9/12/17 4:27 AM, Jaroslav Pullmann wrote:
>   
>    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
>>
>  
>  
>  
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 14:12:45 UTC

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