Re: Re: Use Cases and Requirements for Mapping Relational Databases to RDF

* Sören Auer <soeren.auer@gmail.com> [2010-04-21 18:11+0200]
> On 21.04.2010 5:15, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> >Eric and I discussed all your requirements and integrated your input [1].
> >Please note that we introduced a new subsection 3.2 called 'Non-Functional
> >Requirements' and moved some of your proposed requirements, there, as they
> >seem not to directly address/effect the R2RML, but rather are for
> >convenience, or otherwise desirable.
> 
> As I understand the distinction between functional and
> non-functional from the software engineering point of view: it is
> not about importance or desireability, but whether a requirement
> introduces new functionality or is related to quantitative measures
> such as performance, scalability etc. In that light all my
> requirements are functional.

I think we were looking for a way to distinguish the data-dependent
features from the schema-dependent features. Any suggestions for
wording? (maybe "data-dependent", "schema-dependent"?)

> Sören
> 

-- 
-ericP

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 18:29:32 UTC