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

Re: New requirements on github?

From: Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:56:24 +0000
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
CC: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63FCBA09-3724-41D8-9330-24EAC1914BA5@csiro.au>
Hi Antoine,

I’m gearing up to ensuring we can associate profile use cases and requirements with sections in guidance and other documents. I found it impossible in the Google Doc to know where things are up to (what do the colours mean?, is the first list or the re-ordered list the point of truth?, does re-wording happen online or in comments, or sub bullet points?) and in the last Plenary there was an issue of edit loss for a profile requirement rewording from the previous profileneg meeting. So I created an Issue for each requirement to emulate the DCAT group’s work in using a proper issue tracker.

Every Requirement I could judge to be one in the Google Doc is there and labeled as best as I could understand their categorisation and status. I’ve put links to category-based listings of the issues at the top of the Google Doc as well as a link from each individual Requirement to its GitHub Issue in too.

I’ve also added an item in for the next Plenary’s agenda to discuss officially moving from the Google Doc to GitHub Issues.


Nicholas Car
Senior Experimental Scientist
CSIRO Land & Water
E nicholas.car@csiro.au<mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au> M 0477 560 177<tel:0477%20560%20177> P 07 3833 5632
Dutton Park, QLD, Australia

On 28 Jun 2018, at 9:51 pm, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:


I saw that yesterday a flurry of new github issues has been created about the requirements we're discussing on the google docs. This includes requirements that have not been approved yet, like

which includes a comment from me "derived from the previous one: it's rather trivial, but one never knows..." which was already a bit weird but now becomes downward irrelevant unless we put a link to the 'previous one' in github.

Am I missing something? Has it been decided that the discussion was going to happen on github for these requirements that used to be on the Google Doc?

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I won't have the bandwidth to follow yet another discussion area, especially as each space require verification. I already found that it's hard to keep up between some re-wording agreed in the calls and the wording in the Google doc, I can't imagine having the group to control another space...



Received on Thursday, 28 June 2018 16:56:56 UTC

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