- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:21:02 -0600
- To: howardk@fatdog.com
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Janne Saarela <janne.saarela@profium.com>
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 10:07 -0800, Howard Katz wrote: > Thanks Bijan, > Yes, that was me. What I was actually saying (JANNE: I didn't see this get > into the IRC record; would you mind amending it?) was that I'd like to see a > formal addition to the Use Cases document if we're going to consider this. > My understanding (please anybody, correct me if I'm wrong) was that anything > considered sufficiently important to become part of the official > specification needs to be motivated by a formal use case first. Is that not > so? Well, not quite... we haven't constrained ourselves to have complete requirements traceability. If the need for a feature is sufficiently obvious to all concerned, sometimes we don't bother with a usecase/requirement. But it's always in order to ask for one, and it's always in order to provide them. Whether we then take the stories we tell each other and clean them up for publication is another question... if we anticipate "why did you include feature XYZ?" comments, then we do well to tell a story about it in a published WD. Putting it in the published UC&R WD sets expectations in the larger community, so it's a bigger stake in the ground. Or if we think a use case would engage a community that might not know that SPARQL is relevant to them, we do well to publish it as outreach. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 19:21:03 UTC