RE: proposed UCR outline

Hi Sandro,

> 3.  Requirements
>    
>      define our terms ("covers", ...)
> 
>      for each requirement:  (in alphabetic order by title)
> 
>         short title (no more than 40 characters - used for links)
>         statement (1 paragraph)

I put together such an alphabetical list of requirements at
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements

mostly by copying and pasting from the F2F3-updated CFA:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/WD-DC

I'm not sure how easily your "wikitir" program can cope with this header-oriented format, but it seemed the most logical approach. Of course, it just doesn't make sense to create a separate wiki page for each requirement (as we did for the use cases).

Note that the section numbering on the wiki isn't ideal: it should probably instead be 4.1, 4.2, etc. assuming the requirements section is number 4.

There are now anchors for me to link to from the use cases so I can complete that action.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hirtle, David
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:02 AM
> To: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: proposed UCR outline
> 
> 
> Hi Sandro,
> 
> > UCR is getting rather disorganized.   It's kind of unreadable.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > Here's a proposal for how to organize it, motivated in part by a 
> > discussion with David yesterday, after the meeting ended.  
> If people 
> > like this organization, we can start to figure out how to 
> get the text 
> > to look like this.
> 
> We should probably discuss during our "editors call" 
> (whenever that is).
> 
> > 
> >    -- Sandro
> > 
> > ================================================================
> >   
> > 
> > 1.  Introduction
> > 
> >       ?    what are rules?   why standardize?   some history?
> 
> I went ahead and copied (with minor edits) Frank's 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/What_is_a_Rule_Interc
> hange_Format_And_Why_Create_One
> 
> to the introduction:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Introduction
> 
> It's not perfect, but it's better than our earlier 
> placeholder. There is some overlap with the preamble in 
> section 2, but we can fix that later.
> 
> > 
> > 2.  Use Cases
> > 
> >       for each use case:
> > 
> >         title
> >         text
> >         links to requirements, maybe CSFs
> >         (later: links to test cases)
> >         (maybe: links to more detailed versions on the wiki 
> for people
> >         really trying to solve a problem like this)
> 
> For the links to requirements, I quickly did one use case as 
> a sample (see the bottom):
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Negotiating_eBusiness
> _Contracts_Across_Rule_Platforms
> 
> This is how they're done in the RDF Data Access Use Cases and 
> Requirements WD (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#u2.1).
> 
> I plan to add the necessary anchors on the wiki today so that 
> the forward pointers have something to point to.
> 
> > 3.  Requirements
> >    
> >      define our terms ("covers", ...)
> > 
> >      for each requirement:  (in alphabetic order by title)
> > 
> >         short title (no more than 40 characters - used for links)
> >         statement (1 paragraph)
> >         links to use cases and CSFs which motivate this requirement
> 
> I don't think we need both forward (uc --> req) and backward 
> (req --> uc) links, do we? I think just forward would do (in 
> section 2).
> 
> >         additional comments
> >         either: approved for phase 1 // under consideration 
> for phase 
> > 2
> >             (maybe "under consideration" items don't appear in WD?)
> >             (maybe group by this flag, and then alphabetize within 
> > groups)
> 
> How about a "Status:" field again à la RDF DAWG's WD (e.g. 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#r3.1)?
> 
> > 4.  Goal Analysis
> > 
> 
> I agree with Dave: "Goals" is probably better, and this 
> section should precede the actual requirements.
> 
> >        description of Critical Success Factors process / terminology
> > 
> >        diagram -- maybe a imagemap with links to appropriate
> >                   descriptions (maybe even as pop-up on 
> mouse-over if
> >                   someone feels motivated)
> 
> The diagram could start out simple, e.g. with goals and CSFs 
> only. An image map sounds like a good idea, and isn't much extra work.
> 
> By the way (before I forget), it seems the legend disappeared 
> somewhere along the way; I think it's important to leave it in.
> 
> >        for each goal
> >              short title
> >              statement 
> >              link to CSFs (implicit in outline form)
> >
> >        for each CSF
> >              short title
> >              statement
> >              link to goals (implicit in outline-form)
> >              link to requirements, and maybe CSF's
> 
> For each CSF, we could have a "detailed view" diagram that 
> includes only the goals and requirements to which it relates.
> 
> > 	
> > 5.  Coverage (RIFRAF)
> > 
> >        for each discriminator:
> >               short title
> >               explanation, including alternative vocabulary
> > 	      flag: in phase 1, unresolved whether in phase 1, 
> not in phase 1
> >               maybe some kind of grouping/clustering/hierarchy
> >                  (as in current draft)
> >               
> 
> In a sense, the Coverage CSF (and related requirements) are 
> being given their own section, so should we omit Coverage 
> from the other (Goals and Requirements) sections?
> 
> David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:04 AM
> > To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: proposed UCR outline
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [mostly for UCR editors]
> > 
> > UCR is getting rather disorganized.   It's kind of unreadable.
> > 
> > Here's a proposal for how to organize it, motivated in part by a 
> > discussion with David yesterday, after the meeting ended.  
> If people 
> > like this organization, we can start to figure out how to 
> get the text 
> > to look like this.  (I think this is all editorial stuff 
> that doesn't 
> > need Working Group approval, except that the WG needs to 
> actually be 
> > able to read & understand the content it approved in the meeting.)
> > 
> >    -- Sandro
> > 
> > ================================================================
> >   
> > 
> > 1.  Introduction
> > 
> >       ?    what are rules?   why standardize?   some history?
> > 
> > 2.  Use Cases
> > 
> >       for each use case:
> > 
> >         title
> >         text
> >         links to requirements, maybe CSFs
> >         (later: links to test cases)
> >         (maybe: links to more detailed versions on the wiki 
> for people
> >         really trying to solve a problem like this)
> > 
> > 3.  Requirements
> >    
> >      define our terms ("covers", ...)
> > 
> >      for each requirement:  (in alphabetic order by title)
> > 
> >         short title (no more than 40 characters - used for links)
> >         statement (1 paragraph)
> >         links to use cases and CSFs which motivate this requirement
> >         additional comments
> >         either: approved for phase 1 // under consideration 
> for phase 
> > 2
> >             (maybe "under consideration" items don't appear in WD?)
> >             (maybe group by this flag, and then alphabetize within 
> > groups)
> > 
> > 4.  Goal Analysis
> > 
> >        description of Critical Success Factors process / terminology
> > 
> >        diagram -- maybe a imagemap with links to appropriate
> >                   descriptions (maybe even as pop-up on 
> mouse-over if
> >                   someone feels motivated)
> > 
> >        for each goal
> >              short title
> >              statement 
> >              link to CSFs (implicit in outline form)
> > 
> >        for each CSF
> >              short title
> >              statement
> >              link to goals (implicit in outline-form)
> >              link to requirements, and maybe CSF's
> > 	
> > 5.  Coverage (RIFRAF)
> > 
> >        for each discriminator:
> >               short title
> >               explanation, including alternative vocabulary
> > 	      flag: in phase 1, unresolved whether in phase 1, 
> not in phase 1
> >               maybe some kind of grouping/clustering/hierarchy
> >                  (as in current draft)
> >               
> >        later (WD3?) - for each rule system/rule language, and for 
> >        each dialect, how does it match up to the discriminators?
> >        (this would be a large table, or perhaps a set of 
> tables, with
> >        one per dialect).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 19:02:45 UTC