Re: Stating requirements

Jaro - do we just copy the tag mechanisms and make up new tags for
requirements groups, re-use existing tags or create a new scoped set of
tags for requirements and a separate file control.  It would also be nice
to have the list of UC collapsed by default in the overview - or move
requirements up to top of document?  IMHO the simple clean requirements
will be the point of entry, and where we need to work, and the UC almost an
appendix with further evidence as required.,

Rob

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 at 00:18 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Thanks, Rob. This gives us four groups that we can discuss.
> Can we give the requirements in these groups a unique tag that we can
> filter on? That way we all get the same view while discussing them.
>
> kc
>
> On 9/12/17 3:08 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> > Hi Karen et al,
> >
> > The first batch of requirements have been edited heavily, the second 50%
> > less so - was trying to get feedback on progress so far because its a
> > fair bit of work to try to get the requirements both simple and self
> > explanatory, and not be lots of repetitions of very similar things.
> >
> > I have just committed a few edits I had started cleaning up such things.
> >
> > For the record, the groupings to review are:
> >
> > 6.1 -> 6.4  "Profiles"
> > 6.5 -> 6.9 "Versions"  (add 6.43 here)
> > 6.10 -> 6.13 "Finer grained descriptions of datasets and distributions"
> >
> > I would like to focus on identification and citation matters as a group
> > - it kind of overlaps Version perhaps
> > 6.17 6.22 6.23 6.36?
> >
> > Are spatial and temporal extent part of "fine grained semantics" - in
> > the same way that classifications schemes used in attributes are part of
> > the fine grained data structure - is this just an expression of the
> > range of a property of the data?
> >
> > Whatever happens, its going to be hard to come up with disjoint
> > categories and groupings - and I dont want to spend my life justifying
> > my arbitrary decisions, so I've done a few and lets see whether an
> > agreed structure falls out looking at the rest please.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 at 12:06 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> > <mailto: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 <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
> >     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> >     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
> <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
> >
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
>
>