- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:01:22 -0600
- To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
I see: "Description: the ontology MUST be available as a simple set of properties, to hide complexity for whose who do not need it." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#req-r05 Words like "simple" involve judgement. (Or did I read too fast and miss an objective definition of "simple"?) Please let's reserve the word "requirement" for things that are objective and testable, and use some other lable, such as "design principle" for subjective things like "simplicity". "Requirements should be objective and testable. This is not to say that things that are not testable have no place; the design goals of XML 1.0 were an important part of the consensus process. But design goals, objectives and the like should be clearly distinguished from testable, objective requirements." -- http://esw.w3.org/topic/RequirementsDocument -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 16:01:31 UTC