W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

Re: WebOnt General Requirements Subgroup - Initial E-mail

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:29:01 +0100
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: "McGuinness, Deborah" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, ned.smith@intel.com, jeremy_carroll@hp.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, connolly@w3.org, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <41256B1B.004A21A7.00@ambem5.eps.agfa.be>
> Given this as a starting point, I'd like to solicit feedback on the
> following issues:
> 1) Is the name "General Requirements" appropriate? Do we prefer
> something else? Perhaps "Core Requirements?" Other suggestions?

WOL Requirements???

> 2) How should we proceed? I recommend that Deborah and I merge our
> initial requirements and then present these to the rest of the group as
> a straw man. For those interested, my initial sketch of requirements for
> a Web Ont language can be found at
> http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~heflin/webont/reqs.html

I've read both "initial requirements" pieces and I think
that an merge is a good first step

> 3) What format should the detailed requirements take? Guus Schreiber's
> suggestion for Use Case format doesn't fit, since we are describing
> requirements. I propose the following format:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> A short name for the requirement
> Which use cases (or classes of use cases) will benefit from this
> requirement?
> Why is the requirement important? What will it achieve?
> How might our language design satisfy or support the requirement?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, that's a good proposal (and let's see how it works in the straw man)

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 08:30:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:39 UTC