+1. the list is long, but it seems manageable. I mean we have to start somewhere, and this seems really complete :-)
As far as the unclear names are concerned, I would suggest to list them during the call. Starting the the list of suggested merges, and using the following heuristic: if there's discussion on merging a pair or group of requirements for more than 5 minutes, then:
- add the requirement to the list of unclear ones
- postpone the discussion until a next call - perhaps one longer than an hour!
Cheers,
Antoine
On 11/8/14 12:02 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> Thank you Karen,
>
> I also think that the etherpad is a very good way discussing how to merge requirements.
>
>
> 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 "Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 7. November 2014 17:49
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: AW: [RDF AP] merge object and data property requirements
>
> couldn't color code but used bold, and there isn't much overlap, so we
> can take Thomas' set first, then move on to mine (or others that any of
> you might suggest, please!).
>
> Another list that I anticipate would be useful would be "Requirements
> whose names and definitions aren't clear." Obviously, "not clear" is
> subjective, but this is a list that we can and should all contribute to.
> Does someone want to start it?
>
> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/requirements_analysis
>
> The pad is also linked from our home wiki page.
>
> kc
>
> On 11/7/14 2:45 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here is the list of object and data property requirements which could be merged from my point of view:
>>
>> R-10-DISJOINT-DATA-PROPERTIES
>> R-9-DISJOINT-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
>>
>> R-11-DISJOINT-DATA-PROPERTIES-CLASS-SPECIFIC
>> R-12-DISJOINT-OBJECT-PROPERTIES-CLASS-SPECIFIC
>> what I meant with these requirements is that properties are only disjoint within some context which can be a class dor example. Therefore, I won't merge them with R-10 and R-9. [Thomas]
>> We could rename them as R-X-CONTEXT-SPECIFIC-DISJOINT-PROPERTIES [Thomas]
>>
>> R-26-DATA-PROPERTY-DOMAIN
>> R-25-OBJECT-PROPERTY-DOMAIN
>>
>> R-35-DATA-PROPERTY-RANGE
>> R-28-OBJECT-PROPERTY-RANGE
>>
>> R-5-EQUIVALENT-DATA-PROPERTIES
>> R-4-EQUIVALENT-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
>>
>> R-53-NEGATIVE-DATA-PROPERTY-CONSTRAINTS
>> R-52-NEGATIVE-OBJECT-PROPERTY-CONSTRAINTS
>>
>> R-64-SUB-DATA-PROPERTIES
>> R-54-SUB-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
>>
>> R-65-FUNCTIONAL-DATA-PROPERTIES
>> R-57-FUNCTIONAL-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
>>
>> R-74 Exact Qualified Cardinality Restrictions on Object Properties
>> R-77 Exact Qualified Cardinality Restrictions on Data Properties
>> R-80 Exact Unqualified Cardinality Restrictions on Object Properties
>> R-83 Exact Unqualified Cardinality Restrictions on Data Properties
>> + 1 for NO distinction between data and object properties [Thomas]
>> +1 for distinction between qualified and unqualified [Thomas]
>> + 1 for distinction between min, max, and exact cardinality restrictions as appropriate constraints are different [Thomas]
>>
>> R-75 Minimum Qualified Cardinality Restrictions on Object Properties
>> R-78 Minimum Qualified Cardinality Restrictions on Data Properties
>> R-81 Minimum Unqualified Cardinality Restrictions on Object Properties
>> R-84 Minimum Unqualified Cardinality Restrictions on Data Properties
>>
>> R-76 Maximum Qualified Cardinality Restrictions on Object Properties
>> R-79 Maximum Qualified Cardinality Restrictions on Data Properties
>> R-82 Maximum Unqualified Cardinality Restrictions on Object Properties
>> R-85 Maximum Unqualified Cardinality Restrictions on Data Properties
>>
>> R-90-EXISTENTIAL-QUANTIFICATION-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES
>> R-86-EXISTENTIAL-QUANTIFICATION-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
>>
>> R-91-UNIVERSAL-QUANTIFICATION-ON-DATA-PROPERTIES
>> R-87-UNIVERSAL-QUANTIFICATION-ON-OBJECT-PROPERTIES
>>
>> R-93-DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-CONSTRAINTS-ON-OBJECT-AND-DATA-PROPERTIES
>> + 1 for deleting this requirement [Thomas]
>>
>> R-95-POSITIVE-DATA-PROPERTY-ASSERTIONS
>> R-94-POSITIVE-OBJECT-PROPERTY-ASSERTIONS
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This sounds also great to me, thanks for the offer, Thomas!
>>
>> Echoing Karen's concern on the number of steps: after we agree for step 2, perhaps we can split the list of requirements to copy-and-deprecate, so that others can jump in.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> On 11/4/14 8:29 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> Wow. I wish it didn't take so many steps, but I agree with your plan. If we can do this over email, and just confirm during the call, we save ourselves some call time.
>>>
>>> Antoine, does that sound good to you?
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>> On 11/4/14 9:36 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think the next step could be to merge object and data property
>>>> requirements.
>>>>
>>>> I read the notes from the last call and there has been common consensus
>>>> that these requirements should be merged.
>>>>
>>>> We should collect ideas how to proceed here.
>>>>
>>>> My idea:
>>>>
>>>> 1.I could provide you a list with object and data property requirements
>>>> which could be merged
>>>>
>>>> 2.We decide for each pair or for all together if we want to merge them
>>>>
>>>> 3.I add ‘[deprecated]’ to one requirement of each requirement pair
>>>>
>>>> 4.We reorganize links to and from the deprecated requirements
>>>>
>>>> 5.We migrate definitions, descriptions, examples from deprecated
>>>> requirements
>>>>
>>>> 6.I delete deprecated requirements
>>>>
>>>> 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 <http://www.gesis.org/>
>>>>
>>>> Website: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> GitHub: _https://github.com/boschthomas/PhD_
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
>
|