Hi Thomas,
if you look at the bottom of the Etherpad you will see, that I grouped the Requirements in three categories:
Documentation, Presentation/Publication and AP Composition. R-207 I assigned to the last. R-225 is not an AP requirement but has to do with data validation. Maybe we should about new requirement classes at the next webex call.
Best wishes
Stefanie
________________________________________
Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]]" im Auftrag von "Bosch, Thomas [[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Dezember 2014 08:54
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: [RDF AP] R-225 and R-207
These requirements are unclassified so far.
Should we classify these requirements (R-225 and R-207) as 'Application Profile' requirements?
That would be a new top-level class of requirements.
Thomas
R-207 - ACTION: Stefanie = fix description and title of this requirement
What I've done;-)
I changed the wording in R-207 (see: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/412)
I created another Requirement R-225 (see: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/453).
I hope this goes with UC-5 (see: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=UC-5-MANDATORY-EDM-CLASSES)
I attached the General Use Case (http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/452) to the KIM Case Study (CS-5 see: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=CS-5-DINI-AG-KIM-RDF-REPRESENTATION-OF-BIBLIOGRAPHIC-DATA) and added this case study to the DC Cases Studies so that you will now find UC-General in the DC Use Cases.
Best wishes, Merry Xmas and a happy New Year
Stefanie
________________________________________
Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]]" im Auftrag von "Ruehle, Stefanie [[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Dezember 2014 14:05
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: AW: [RDF AP] Preparation for Tuesday's call
Dear all,
You find the "meta-level" use case here: http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/452
After looking at the different requirements that I linked with it, I did some categorization at the bottom of the Etherpad (see https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/requirements_analysis)
Hear you later
Stefanie
________________________________________
Von: DCMI Architecture Forum [[log in to unmask]]" im Auftrag von "Antoine Isaac [[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Montag, 15. Dezember 2014 13:45
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [RDF AP] Preparation for Tuesday's call
Hi everyone,
ACTION: Antoine & Valentine - merge 117/118
--DONE. After our discussion I've tried to re-write R-117, including the material from R-118. But it was not very clear, and the final result look indeed like a general requirement for application profiles. I've tried to make explicit some specifics we should keep in mind for defining/documenting APs
ANTOINE: 26, 28, 30, 31, 32
DONE, with a specific note on R-30 and R-32: it seems we will have here a cluster of requirements that will need some discussion time.
Antoine
On 12/14/14 5:00 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I've added my take on requirements 34-47 to the etherpad:
>
> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/requirements_analysis
>
> Please complete your list:
>
> COREY: 212, 213, 214, 215, 216
> VALENTINE: 217, 218, 219, 220, 25
> ANTOINE: 26, 28, 30, 31, 32
>
> Thanks,
> kc
|