W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: Plenary agenda June 5

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:22:36 -0700
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20c143ef-b455-ee8f-8cbc-de15b5f58761@lbl.gov>
items like:

 1.

    Requirement: Clients should be able to determine which profiles are
    supported by a server, and with which content types.  [ID2] (5.2)
    [conneg]

 2.

    Requirement: There should be a way for a client to look up
    additional information about a profile. (What kinds of information?
    Can we clarify this?)  [ID2] (5.2) [conneg]


On 6/4/18 12:13 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Ah, those are the ones that I see as being requirements for profiles,
> and that would be included in the Guidance document where it talks about
> the functionality of profiles. I read them as being "these are the
> things a profile needs to have to be a profile". So we may be in sync on
> that. Now, which are the ones that are "these are the things the spec we
> are writing needs to accomplish"?
>
> kc
>
> On 6/4/18 11:31 AM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>> some examples:
>>
>>    * Requirement: Profiles may provide rules on cardinality of terms
>>      (including “recommended”) [ID41] (5.41) [profile]
>>    * Requirement: Profiles may provide rules governing value validity
>>      [ID41] (5.41) [profile]
>>    * Requirement: Profiles may express dependencies between elements of
>>      the vocabulary (if A then not B, etc.) [ID41] (5.41) [profile]
>>    * Requirement: Profiles can have rules for data value validation,
>>      including pick lists [ID46] (5.46) [profile]
>>
>>
>> On 6/2/18 12:17 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> I'm not sure which ones you see as requirements for a spec. Can you give
>>> a couple of examples?
>>>
>>> My take is that as we were developing the use cases most of them were
>>> about requirements for profiles, not requirements for a profile guidance
>>> document. And we would take those requirements for profiles and turn
>>> them into a guidance document.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>> On 6/1/18 9:06 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>>>> Are these supposed to be requirements as in
>>>>
>>>>    "these are the things the spec we are writing needs to accomplish"
>>>>
>>>> or requirements as in
>>>>
>>>>    "these are the things a profile needs to have to be a profile"?
>>>>
>>>> To me, the requirements listed on the agenda read as the latter, which
>>>> are the contents of a spec (e.g., they use terms like "can" and "may"),
>>>> but other requirements in the GDoc read as the former, which are
>>>> requirements for a spec.
>>>>
>>>> -Annette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/1/18 6:54 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.06.05
>>>>>
>>>>> Jaroslav organized the requirements into categories, and the first few
>>>>> categories are in the agenda for our discussion. PLEASE take a look at
>>>>> them and be ready to vote. We will try to vote on entire categories
>>>>> unless there are objections to specific requirements. If you will not be
>>>>> at the meeting but wish to comment or vote, you may do so in email and
>>>>> we will do our best to include your views.
>> -- 
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>>

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Monday, 4 June 2018 19:22:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:43 UTC