- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 23:34:40 +0200
- To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Hi Karen, OK now I understand, thanks! Antoine On 23/05/18 07:47, Karen Coyle wrote: > Antoine, as I understand what we decided at F2F3, we are re-extracting > the requirements that in the current UCR are listed under "Profile > Definition", or 6.1. The new ones that we extract and approve would > replace the ones in the current UCR. The motivation is that when we went > to reach consensus on the requirements (2 separate times) people didn't > understand where the requirements had come from, with #212 being such a > case. > > This does not mean that the requirements in the Google Doc are complete. > They are my first pass and are open to revision, addition, etc. However, > it is important that the requirements derive directly from the use cases. > > Short answer: Once new requirements are extracted and approved, we will > close the ones currently in github. > > kc > > On 5/22/18 11:17 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote: >> Hi Karen, all, >> >> I have one extra request for clarification on the google doc. Recently >> (after F2F3) there have been new requirement-like issues created, for >> example: >> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/212 >> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/228 >> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/229 >> I understand that even if they look like reasonable requirements, these >> should not be considered in the discussions around the google doc >> because the connection with the use cases is not as direct as what >> you've started. Am I right? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Antoine >> >> On 21/05/18 08:11, Karen Coyle wrote: >>> Oh, and I should add that the Google Doc [1] shows each requirement in >>> the context of its use case (the lower part of the doc), so if there are >>> questions about wording we can go back to the use cases. I tried to >>> mimic the language in the use case, but that wasn't always possible. >>> Also, I selected the use cases marked as "Profile" but struck out ones >>> that seemed to be covered as DCAT requirements. That's all in the Doc, >>> along with some comments of mine. And if anyone wants to comment on the >>> Doc, do so but you may need to remind us before/during the meeting to >>> look for your comments there. >>> >>> kc >>> [1] >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/edit >>> >>> >>> On 5/21/18 7:09 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: >>>> The profile guidance requirements would replace 6.8.1, which we have >>>> failed to vote on now despite two attempts. At the F2F it was decided to >>>> re-extract the requirements, keeping a clear relationship between >>>> requirements and use cases. >>>> >>>> Some of the content negotiation requirements also appeared in 6.8.1, >>>> which may have led to some of the confusion. The use cases there pretty >>>> clearly speak about negotiation. >>>> >>>> Note that none of the requirements in 6.8.1 have ever been approved by >>>> the group, so this is new work and should help us scope both of the >>>> deliverables. >>>> >>>> kc >>>> >>>> On 5/21/18 1:42 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote: >>>>> hi - >>>>> >>>>> what is the provenance of these (proposed?) requirements? >>>>> >>>>> They seem to heavily overlap with a combination of the requirement >>>>> 6.8.1 >>>>> Profile definition [RPFDF] and the sort of constraint language >>>>> requirements we would expect (noting that specific constraint languages >>>>> may be varied and are agreed to be out of scope). I can't immediately >>>>> identify anything obviously not covered, but if any new requirements >>>>> exist we should certainly discuss and if agreed add them to the UCR, or >>>>> improve the current UCR wording ASAP >>>>> >>>>> Are we best of splitting out the individual clauses in 6.8.1, which >>>>> represent the current consensus position into separate requirements, >>>>> creating git hub issues, and then seeing if all these suggestions >>>>> are in >>>>> fact covered (i.e. i think the onus would be to line up the specific >>>>> proposal against the relevant existing clauses and provide an >>>>> example of >>>>> where a a new functional requirement is indicated, or a better >>>>> explanation for an existing one) >>>>> >>>>> Note that I have also proposed a DCAT-AP inspired profile publishing >>>>> Use >>>>> Case to bring together the implications and existing practices around >>>>> Profile Guidance into a more familiar context. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/238 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think this would also allow us to check these specifics, again I dont >>>>> yet see any additional requirements, but there is obviously a need for >>>>> better communication. >>>>> >>>>> Rob >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20 May 2018 at 16:57, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net >>>>> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> These are the requirements that I have identified that, based >>>>> on the use >>>>> cases, are related to profile guidance. IMO these are fairly >>>>> unremarkable and fit into the outline that we developed at the >>>>> F2F[1]. >>>>> These requirements can be viewed in the context of their use >>>>> cases in >>>>> the Google Doc.[2] >>>>> >>>>> Profile requirements >>>>> >>>>> Requirement: Need a way to express compatibility between >>>>> profiles [ID37] >>>>> (5.37) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles are "named collections of properties" or >>>>> metadata >>>>> terms (if not RDF) [ID41] (5.41) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles may provide rules on cardinality of terms >>>>> (including “recommended”) [ID41] (5.41) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles may provide rules governing value >>>>> validity [ID41] >>>>> (5.41) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles may express dependencies between elements >>>>> of the >>>>> vocabulary (if A then not B, etc.) [ID41] (5.41) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles may be written in or may link to a >>>>> validation >>>>> language (ShEx, SHACL, XMLschema). [ID41] (5.41) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles should be able to indicate what external >>>>> standards >>>>> are expected to be applied to the data provided. [ID42] (5.42) >>>>> [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles should be able to indicate what external >>>>> standards >>>>> are expected to be applied/have been applied to the data >>>>> provided.[ID43] >>>>> (5.43) >>>>> Requirement: Profiles can have what is needed to drive forms >>>>> for data >>>>> input or for user display. [ID46] (5.46) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles can have rules for data value validation, >>>>> including pick lists [ID46] (5.46) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles can have human-readable definitions of >>>>> terms and >>>>> input instructions [ID46] (5.46) [profile] >>>>> Requirement: Profiles may be coordinated with validation >>>>> schemas. [ID48] >>>>> (5.48) [profile] >>>>> >>>>> (They don't come out numbered here, so we will look at the >>>>> google doc in >>>>> order to refer to numbering.) >>>>> >>>>> kc >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15OfNXU9AJ-cZysc7uYP-Gks5dDa8n2B5IN6rWa3kRpo/edit#heading=h.cuvn3apl2413 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15OfNXU9AJ-cZysc7uYP-Gks5dDa8n2B5IN6rWa3kRpo/edit#heading=h.cuvn3apl2413> >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/edit#heading=h.5l26dadqk5v7 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hV2tJ6Kg2Hfe7e1BowY5QfCIweH9GxSCFQV1aWtOPg/edit#heading=h.5l26dadqk5v7> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Karen Coyle >>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net >>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal) >>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 27 May 2018 21:35:10 UTC