- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 22:27:38 +0200
- To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Just for the record, as this got clarified in today's call. Jaro's google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1viuNJx_2dhSoEVOkjCG7cuuqzUqqR7fr4LvmP-t7T2A) is his own attempt to homogeneize/merge requirements, at the time of the call the 'official' categorization of requirements is still in the "Profile requirements working space" at https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/. Antoine On 05/06/18 21:18, Karen Coyle wrote: > 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. > > kc > > 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2018 20:28:11 UTC