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: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 22:27:38 +0200
To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <89e4dfbb-03d0-4405-fd18-9dcecce33ccc@few.vu.nl>
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/.


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

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