W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > April 2019

RE: Minutes from CNEG meeting 2019-04-11 - un-tagging requirements, really? (re action 302)

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 07:51:11 +0000
To: "Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park)" <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
CC: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <35d7fdbfda5747efa5e72a949ddfac6d@dnb.de>
+256 (at least!)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) [mailto:Nicholas.Car@csiro.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 12:03 PM
> To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> Cc: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Minutes from CNEG meeting 2019-04-11 - un-tagging requirements,
> really? (re action 302)
> 
> Yes please Antoine!
> 
> Nicholas Car
> Senior Experimental Scientist
> CSIRO
> nicholas.car@csiro.au | 0477 560 177
> 
> 
> > On 17 Apr 2019, at 6:39 pm, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lars, all,
> >
> > I'm copying Nick's mail after your below, so that there's a complete history. Sorry
> we've not seen your email.
> >
> > And I guess the UCR team (of which I suppose I'm part of) never reacted to that. I
> guess I've seen the discussion that was trying to figure out a common ground
> between you and Karen, and then missed the plenary call in which it's been
> discussed.
> >
> > Anyway, not good excuses, but re action 302 I'm surprised it was closed without
> 'urging the UCR team to consolidate the requirement and close them' themselves.
> That may have triggered something on our side.
> >
> > As you may see in the minutes, my reluctance to untagging is that it loses a big
> part of the context of issues, which is hard to retrieve later. Closing feels more
> appropriate for reflecting that a requirement is handled. Of course that's not
> possible for issues tagged with multiple deliverable. Which is why we've suggested
> this 'xxx-closed' tag yesterday.
> > This said I realize that my fear would apply to the 'plenary-approved'
> requirements. The older ones can be considered as noise, and I'm less worried about
> untagging them or closing them abruptly.
> >
> > That may not help you much though, since (for a reason I now fail to remember)
> nearly all the issues at
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/#ProfileNegotiationRequirements

> > seem to be dually tagged between Conneg and other profile deliverable(s).
> >
> > As a token of goodwill (and probably out of shame not having jumped in 302) I
> am willing to add back the 'profile-negotiation' label as well as the new 'profile-
> negotiation-closed' one on the ones that were un-labeled in the past days. Would
> this be ok?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Minutes from CNEG meeting 2019-04-11 - un-tagging
> requirements,  really?
> > Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:24:12 +0000
> > From: Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>
> > To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <public-dxwg-
> wg@w3.org>
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We - conneg editors - agree that de-tagging isn't a great idea. When we do this,
> we loose the historical record of Issues that documents have dealt with.
> >
> > Going forward, we will simply tag issues with xxx-closed when they are closed
> from the point of view of a subgroup, e.g. if profile-negotiation feels an issue is
> closed for them, we will use profile-negotiation-closed. This will allow us to deal with
> issues closed in subgroups and yet still retain the historical record.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >> On 16/04/2019 20:01, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> >> Good Evening Antoine,
> >>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:32 PM, Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> wrote:
> >>> I am not sure to understand why removing the profile-negotiation tag from
> >>> requirements that have been met. They are still relevant to negotiation even if
> they
> >>> are met, aren't they? I would consider closing them is a much better option
> (though
> >>> one may argue it's better done in plenary). Loosing the connection from Use
> Cases
> >>> and Requirements to our products does not seem good - especially if there are
> some
> >>> automatic listings made by using these tags...
> >> This was discussed in ACTION-302 (cf. email thread starting at [1]). The final
> resolution was that if we consider that a requirement has been addressed in a
> deliverable, then we remove the tag but keep the issue open until it has been
> addressed in _all_ deliverables:
> >> [[
> >> [...] If conneg has completed this [requirement #217] you can remove the
> conneg label
> >> and you are no long responsible for that issue. You may want to leave a
> >> comment that you've included it in your document and are removing your
> >> label.]]
> >> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Feb/0556.html

> >> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Feb/0597.html

> >> Best,
> >> Lars
> >>
> >>>> On 12/04/2019 12:35, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> >>>> ... are at [1].
> >>>>
> >>>> We spent most of the meeting reviewing open GitHub issues, deciding to flag
> >>> some of them for closing and to remove the profile-negotiation tag from
> >>> requirements we consider have been met.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/04/11-dxwgcneg-minutes

> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Lars
> >>>>
> >>>> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
> >>>>
> >
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2019 07:51:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:16 UTC