Looks very good now. Thank you, Thomas!
Evelyn
Am 10.07.2014, 13:20 Uhr, schrieb Bosch, Thomas <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Evelyn,
>
> I fixed your issue.
>
> In the detailed view on use cases you see for use case 5 a sub-section
> 'requirements' with a list of links to requirements which are associated
> with this use case.
>
> In the view 'requirements by use case', it is also shown that R-68 is
> linked to use case 5.
>
> If you click on a a specific use case you can now see relationships to
> requirements (so far requirements were hidden)
> and if you cklick on a specific requirements you get a list of all
> related use cases.
>
>
> If you have any ideas for additional views on requirements, use cases,
> case studies, tools, please let me know and I try to implement it.
> Thanks Evelyn for your hint.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
> --
> Thomas Bosch, M.Sc. (TUM)
> PhD Student
> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
> Social Science Metadata Standards
> Visitors Address: B2,1, D-68159 Mannheim
> Postal Address: P.O.Box 12 21 55, D-68072 Mannheim
> Tel: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-271
> Fax: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-100
> Web: http://www.gesis.org
> Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
> GitHub: https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]]" im
> Auftrag von "Evelyn Dröge [[log in to unmask]]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2014 11:16
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: Feedback DB validation requirements
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> when I create a use case, I link it to a requirement but this is not
> shown
> in the use case representation. An example: I have linked use case 5 to
> requirement 68 but this is neither displayed in the requirement nor in
> the
> use case description. I think that you can change that in the use case
> content type settings (but I do not see exactly where). Or was that done
> on purpose?
>
> Thanks for helping :)
>
> Best,
> Evelyn
>
> Am 10.07.2014, 09:47 Uhr, schrieb Kai Eckert
> <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Am 09.07.2014 23:06, schrieb Karen Coyle:
>>> I don't always understand the requirement from its name in the
>>> rdf-validation database. In the long display of the requirement there
>>> is
>>> often a brief description, but I must admit to be baffled still by many
>>> of them, for example:
>>
>> All the more it is important to keep duplicate requirements once
>> identified or at least their descriptions. I am not saying that what we
>> try is an easy task, but if we accomplish it, it will not only give us
>> all a much clearer view on the requirements of our community, we also
>> create a controlled vocabulary of requirements that will be immensely
>> useful in any subsequent discussions and developments.
>>
>>
>>> - Machine Understandable Concrete Syntaxes Formulation Constraints
>>> - Leverage on Existing Technologies (which is described as: "Whenever
>>> possible") (I think I understand this one, but can't be sure.)
>>>
>>> Perhaps this is a good reason to develop our own requirements unless
>>> the
>>> existing ones are totally obvious to everyone, so that we can then
>>> discuss in the group what the requirements mean to us.
>>
>> I hope that Thomas will be able and have enough time to provide us with
>> a set of tools supporting exactly this discussion. I am, however, very
>> optimistic :-)
>>
>>> I am also hoping that we can develop our requirements around the
>>> relevant (as we wish to define it) Singapore Framework areas. Data
>>> validation requirements will most likely be fulfilled in the ShEx and
>>> SPIN arenas, and we can lean on those for validation details. But the
>>> areas of "record" (read:graph) modeling, vocabulary mix-n-match, and
>>> documentation may not be well covered by those whose emphasis is on
>>> data
>>> validation.
>>>
>>
>> A good point, we should keep in mind to extend the approach and the
>> database to all kinds of requirements, not only validation. But let's
>> focus for now on validation.
>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/9/14, 7:57 AM, Kai Eckert wrote:
>>>> Am 08.07.2014 21:43, schrieb Antoine Isaac:
>>>>>> Related to your comment during the discussion.
>>>>>> If you have a requirement in mind and you are not sure if it is
>>>>>> already contained in the requirements db, just create an new
>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>> I can look if there is already a requirement in the db with the same
>>>>>> semantics in order to delete duplicates.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great!
>>>>> I'd expect that you mail us before deleting duplicates. This would
>>>>> probably be very useful for the person who created the requirements,
>>>>> and
>>>>> for the others, who could also see what's happening during
>>>>> requirement
>>>>> elicitation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would not delete them, I would join them by linking them as
>>>> duplicates.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, when a new requirement is created, existing requirements
>>>> should be autosuggested based on the description, either during
>>>> entering
>>>> or after submission, where the creator could be asked to review
>>>> similar
>>>> requirements, if they match. I assume that this can be done quite
>>>> simply
>>>> without too much effort. For the first shot, I would simply search for
>>>> all requirements that have matching terms somewhere in the
>>>> description,
>>>> let's see how far we get with that.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Kai
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Evelyn Dröge
>
> Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
> Berlin School of Library and Information Science
> - Digitised Manuscripts to Europeana (DM2E) -
> Dorotheenstraße 26, D-10117 Berlin
> Tel.: +49 30 2093-4265
>
> [log in to unmask]
> www.ibi.hu-berlin.de | dm2e.eu
--
Evelyn Dröge
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Berlin School of Library and Information Science
- Digitised Manuscripts to Europeana (DM2E) -
Dorotheenstraße 26, D-10117 Berlin
Tel.: +49 30 2093-4265
[log in to unmask]
www.ibi.hu-berlin.de | dm2e.eu
|