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

RE: dxwg-ACTION-302: Request chairs to identify procedure for closing issues about requirement definitions and urge ucr team to consolidate and close such issues as appropriate.

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:45:22 +0000
To: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "pedro.win.stan@gmail.com" <pedro.win.stan@gmail.com>
CC: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <239111bf7c72440f8ad335843ad03850@dnb.de>
On Friday, February 22, 2019 2:30 PM, Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] wrote:

> On 2/22/19 12:25 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> > Karen,
> >
> > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 5:39 PM, Karen Coyle
> [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] wrote:
> >
> >> Lars, I'm not entirely sure of what you are asking, but we have seen
> >> requirements that need to be addressed in more than one deliverable. If
> >> you can determine that they have been addressed in all of the relevant
> >> deliverables, or if the labels are not relevant, then they can be closed.
> >
> > Perhaps I've misunderstood what the GitHub issues for requirements are about.
> So far I've thought that they are to discuss the requirements, find appropriate
> wording etc. and then get them into the UCR document. Then we use the UCR
> document as the baseline to see if we have addressed all our requirements.
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that you take the view that we keep the agreed-on
> requirements as open GitHub issues until the requirement has been addressed in all
> deliverables the requirement refers to?
> >
> Yes. That is how we've been using them in the profile guidance document,
> and I think also in profiles ontology. We've put the requirements into
> the draft and then used that to assure that the draft addresses the
> requirement. You may have done otherwise in conneg - I suspect that you
> had a better grasp of the document content starting out than we have
> with the guidance document.
> So I guess we've used them for multiple purposes - to complete the UCR
> and then to guide the creation of the deliverables. And I don't think we
> ever decided that it may have just happened. Sorry!

OK, at least that resolves my question. For conneg we might decide to add a comment and remove the tag when we think that a requirement is fulfilled in that deliverable.


Received on Thursday, 28 February 2019 18:45:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:13 UTC