Hi Thomas,
The 2nd URL (http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=R-7-DISJOINT-CLASSES) is indeed what I was thinking of. Except that I would even have prefered to drop the number.
But I guess it's less important. And it's something that should be done upon the time the requirement is created the first time, not later...
Cheers,
Antoine
On 7/21/14 5:56 PM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> Hi Evelyn, hi Antoine, hi all,
>
> in order to dereference requirements, case studies, and use cases I could specify URL aliases.
>
> I have done this for the requirement R-7 (Disjoint Classes):
>
> Now, you can use these URLs
>
> ·http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/14
>
> ·http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=R-7-DISJOINT-CLASSES
>
> to point to this requirement.
>
> The alphanumeric ID would be part of the URL.
>
> Antoine, is this what you suggested?
>
> 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
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Antoine Isaac
> Gesendet: Montag, 21. Juli 2014 16:28
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: Database of Requirements on RDF Validation
>
> Hi Evelyn, all,
>
> It's great to see discussion reaching the stages of actual requirements.
>
> Thomas and Kai's database is certainly a great help here.
>
> May I ask however that when people post about it, they include the URIs of requirements or cases in the mail? (maybe as a list of references like [1] if it clutters too much the sentences).
>
> It is tedious when writing, but it would help a lot to engage people on the list.
>
> Hmm, I see that the URLs do not re-use the number of the requirement, so it's a bit sub-optimal. But actually it might be better to have requirements with strings, no number at all.
>
> R-7 [1] could have been R-DISJOINT-CLASSES. Not even R-7-DISJOINT-CLASSES as it's now presented (though not even as its main title).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1]http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/14
>
> On 7/21/14 4:03 PM, Evelyn Dröge wrote:
>
> > Hi Thomas, hi all,
>
> >
>
> > thank you again, Thomas and Kai, for creating the database. I think this is a good help to structure and compare our use cases!
>
> >
>
> > I have some direct questions which I would like to discuss with you and others that work with the database.
>
> >
>
> > I could not find suitable requirements for the following cases:
>
> >
>
> > - Required Classes (similar to R-68 Required Properties; could be connected to the use case for non-repeatable classes)
>
> >
>
> > - Non-repeatable Properties (opposite of R-70 Repeatable Properties; or can this requirement used for both?)
>
> >
>
> > - Non-repeatable Classes
>
> >
>
> > - Properties that are not part of the model (and should not be ingested, see UC-15)
>
> >
>
> > Do you have (or has anyone else) an idea how this could be linked to exisiting requirements? Otherwise I would suggest to expand the requirements collection.
>
> >
>
> > Another question: I have a case where I find it hard to distinguish between requirements. This relates to UC-24 (Property value match; EDM) and UC-9 (Wrong Mime Types in DM2E). Should these use cases be connected with R-37 or with R-92 (or both)?
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for your help!
>
> >
>
> > Best,
>
> > Evelyn
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Am 17.07.2014, 13:00 Uhr, schrieb Bosch, Thomas <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> >
>
> > Hi all,
>
> >
>
> > I'm new to this mailing list and I would like to indoduce myself.
>
> > My name is Thomas Bosch and I'm a PhD student in Computer Science in my fourth year now.
>
> >
>
> > I'm part of the editorial board of the DCMI RDF Application Profiles Task Group [1],
>
> > whosepreliminary fields of work are (1) RDF Constraint Specification and Validation, (2) Definition of an RDF Application Profile, and (3) Request handling for RDF APs and data.
>
> >
>
> > Together with Kai Eckert (University of Mannheim), we created a database of requirements on RDF constraint formulation and validation, which is publicly accessable via
>
> > http://purl.org/net/rdf-validation
>
> > and extensible by the community.
>
> >
>
> > During the last half year, we identified more than 180 requirements on RDF validation.
>
> > Sources have been (1) the 2013 W3C RDF Validation Workshop, (2) your valuable mailing list discussions, (3) the 2013 Semantic Web in Libraries conference,
>
> > (4) discussions in the RDF Application Profiles Task Group, and (5) diverse research papers.
>
> >
>
> > The idea of this extensible database is
>
> > (1) to collect and describe case studies from experts (from theory and practice dealing with RDF validation problems) and the general public,
>
> > (2) to extract common use cases from these case studies that illustrate particular problems,
>
> > (3) to specify requirements to be fulfilled in order to adequately solve these problems and meet the use cases,
>
> > (4) to investigate existing best-practices regarding these requirements, and
>
> > (5) to evaluate existing approaches / tools to which extend specific requirements are fulfilled.
>
> >
>
> > Using this approach, we try to structure the requirements engineering process for RDF validation.
>
> > I see that there is currently a lot of discussion about requirements on RDF validation on this maling list, which I tried to capture in the requirements DB as well.
>
> >
>
> > The contributors of the DCMI RDF Application Profiles Task Group are currently adding further case studies, use cases, requirements, and relationships between these entities to the database.
>
> > This should be a work done for and from the community dealing with RDF validation issues.
>
> >
>
> > The full source code of the system and the database with the current state of all requirements is also available:
>
> > https://github.com/kaiec/reqbase
>
> > You can easily set up a local version for own developments.
>
> >
>
> > Do you think this is the right way to go?
>
> > Do you have further ideas?
>
> >
>
> > We hope this kind of contribution could be helpful for the community.
>
> >
>
> > Thank you very much and I really enjoy the valuable discussions on the mailing list
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Thomas
>
> >
>
> > [1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF-Application-Profiles
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > 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_
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Evelyn Dröge
>
> >
>
> > Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
>
> > Berlin School of Library and Information Science
>
> > - Digitised Manuscripts to Europeana (DM2E) -
>
> > Sitz: Dorotheenstraße 26, D-10117 Berlin
>
> > Post: Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin
>
> > Tel.: +49 30 2093-4265
>
> >
>
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> > www.ibi.hu-berlin.de <http://www.ibi.hu-berlin.de> | dm2e.eu
>
|