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: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:18:31 +1000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LxSx4Txmtf_HfYSJpSXiUyOhY0zq2se8k17HxUSZjMrMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
trick is to scroll down far enough to the "A proposal of requirements
categorization" title to find bit actually being discussed.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 at 06:27 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> 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 <+1%20510-984-3600>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2018 21:19:26 UTC

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