Re: ACTION: Guus cite some examples of other Requirements docs

Hello,

Thanks for the links Guus! These prove to be valueable examples.
One aspect that puzzled me is the diversity of the structure and content:
 
1. The use cases can have (very) subtle variations, even in the 
framework of a single Use cases and Requirements (UCR) documents. This 
is not a big problem, but emphasizes the need for a UC format, like the 
one Alistair sent.

2. Weirder is the diversity of the way "requirements" are presented. In 
the OWL UCR doc, we have *"Design goals"* ("Design goals describe 
general motivations for the language that do not necessarily result from 
any single use case"), *"requirements*" ("The use cases and design goals 
motivate a number of requirements for a web ontology language. The 
Working Group currently feels that the requirements described below are 
essential to the language") and *"Objectives"* ("In addition to the set 
of features that should be in the language (as defined in the previous 
section), there are other features that would be useful for many use 
cases. These features will be addressed by the working group if possible")
Do you think we should start distinguishing our requirements in such a 
way, or shall we just gether everything in a same place, and categorize 
afterwards?
For me any option is OK, I could even start 'adapting' some items from 
OWL to SKOS, like the design goal "avoiding unnecessary complexity which 
may discourage widespread adoption".
But I prefer the whole WG to be aware of this option, especially the 
ones involved in previous UCR efforts, who may help us editors decide if 
this a valid strategy ;-)

Best,

Antoine

>
> OWL:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req
>
> Rules:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060323.html
>
> SPARQL
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:43:43 UTC