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

Re: Plenary agenda June 5 / Partial list of requirements for approval / Informative supplement

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 12:18:19 -0700
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <7284e8c1-7dd9-4f47-30a0-3790199870cb@kcoyle.net>
Now I'm confused. Which list are you referring to as "Jaro's list"? What
I see in the G-Doc are requirements at the top, in red, then categories
of requirements, in black. The latter were provided by Jaro. I used his
categories and the copies of the requirements from the red group
numbered 12-24 for the agenda. I don't see any requirements in red in
Jaro's categorized list.

You have added other requirements, which are not yet in the list at the
top of the document but we'll move those up soon.

Skype me if things are still confused.


On 6/5/18 8:07 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Karen, the requirements in red in Jaro's list include the ones that I
> have not seen in the "list of requirements" you're curating and that
> we're currently discussing. There are similarities, but the wording is
> almost always different. So unless the list you're curating is now
> obsolete, there is a discrepancy. And if the list you're curating is
> obsolete, then I'm currently commenting on an obsolete list...
> Antoine
> On 05/06/18 16:48, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Antoine, I agree and was intending to only look at the requirements in
>> red at the meeting. The other "requirements" were the ones we were not
>> able to agree on so adding them in would be a major source of confusion.
>> I suppose we can delete them from the document, but if we look mainly at
>> the use cases in the document and the requirements related to them
>> (which are written in the use case section) then hopefully we can avoid
>> getting tripped up on the old-but-not-agreed requirements. I should also
>> delete those old requirements from github, but wanted to ask the group
>> about that before taking that step.
>> kc
>> On 6/5/18 6:56 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Coming back to this, I still have big doubts about the methodology and
>>> what we're asked to do - at least about the categorization.
>>> I'm looking at
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1viuNJx_2dhSoEVOkjCG7cuuqzUqqR7fr4LvmP-t7T2A/
>>> which is what Jaro proposes as a 'consolidated' classification/grouping.
>>> But if I understand Jaro's instructions correctly, especially "red =
>>> requirements" then it seems that this list actually introduces new or
>>> re-worded requirements. For example there's "Profiles must list the
>>> expected constituents of compliant data instances, e.g. classes and
>>> properties of RDF data." in red.
>>> This is not in the "list of requirements" at the top of the requirement
>>> working space at
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/
>>> The original requirements from that list are now listed as "context",
>>> according to Jaro.
>>> I'm sorry but I can't review a grouping that introduces new requirements
>>> while we've not yet voted on the ones that we're discussing...
>>> Antoine
>>> On 04/06/18 22:12, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>> Sorry I won't be able to do it. I'm trying my best to find time for
>>>> the Europeana requirement analysis, which I'm very late on :-( And
>>>> honestly my concern was a true one. I was happy with your answer for
>>>> the general approach, but honestly I'm not sure what Jaro meant for
>>>> some specific categories.
>>>> Antoine
>>>> On 04/06/18 21:16, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>> Antoine, could you make that change? We need to be ready to discuss
>>>>> these in about 24 hours and I'd like to avoid discussing the
>>>>> categories
>>>>> rather than the actual requirements.
>>>>> kc
>>>>> On 6/4/18 9:42 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I'd echo Annette's concern here. Karen's answer was good enough
>>>>>> for me,
>>>>>> but Jaro's categorization is really too general. It's about functions
>>>>>> like "Data creation and maintenance", "querying" etc. Can expressions
>>>>>> like 'profile' and 'data expressed according to a profile' be
>>>>>> employed
>>>>>> to clarify the categories? This would make them longer, but at least
>>>>>> we'd have a clearer idea of what (and what for) the requirements
>>>>>> apply to.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Antoine
>>>>>> On 01/06/18 19:28, Jaroslav Pullmann wrote:
>>>>>>>     Dear Karen, dear all
>>>>>>>        here are the same categories with an attempt to
>>>>>>> consolidate the
>>>>>>> various wordings I collected across GitHub, the F2F wiki and UCR
>>>>>>> document [1].
>>>>>>>       Despite the peculiar approach the groupings might be of
>>>>>>> informative value for our requirements discussion. Requirements are
>>>>>>> colored in red, yet
>>>>>>>       unclear statements in gray and the context is enclosed by
>>>>>>> comment
>>>>>>> signs.
>>>>>>>      Best regards
>>>>>>>       Jaro
>>>>>>>     [1]
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1viuNJx_2dhSoEVOkjCG7cuuqzUqqR7fr4LvmP-t7T2A/edit#
>>>>>>>     On Friday, June 1, 2018 15:54 CEST, Karen Coyle
>>>>>>> <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 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, 5 June 2018 19:18:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:04 UTC