[...] > 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: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > REQUIREMENT: > A short name for the requirement > > SUPPORTED TASKS: > Which use cases (or classes of use cases) will benefit from this > requirement? > > JUSTIFICATION: > Why is the requirement important? What will it achieve? > > POSSIBLE APPROACH: > 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