Hi Karen, all
This sounds good. Looking forward to hear what you have changed!
By the way I have made one extra update in the requirement database. I finally created a much-delayed requirement, R-171bis, the one for validating the type of documents returned by de-referencing:
http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/455
Trying to make the difference (and separate the use cases) with R-171, which is rather about simple existence of de-referencing of IRIs.
http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/286
I believe that it reflects our discussions at
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/dcmi-ap-rdf-03-02-2015
I might have forgotten something though. Anyone, feel free to add or change! And as usual the comments are open.
Best,
Antoine
On 2/18/15 4:08 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Thanks, Antoine. This comparison is something I've been meaning to do. We discussed requirements yesterday at the W3C meeting and made a few changes. One requirement that seems to be missing is the ability to effect validation using something other than rdf:type as a trigger. I'll propose that as a requirement for W3C. I think I can get some help for it since there is at least one other person here at the meeting who also needs it.
>
> kc
>
> On 2/17/15 6:47 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>> > ACTION: Stefanie & Antoine to interlink DCAP Reqs with W3C Reqs and
>>> send result to W3C WG, after Karen and Tom have compiled the list of
>>> requirements [NEW]
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've started to link the W3C requirements at
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements
>> with our requirements the DC AP requirements
>> at
>> http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/
>>
>> The process is the following:
>> - I have started from the W3C requirements, and when I thought they were
>> related to the DC AP one, I indicated it
>> - the result appears in the DC AP requirement page (no time to do
>> anything else!)
>> - I have gone through sections 2.1-2.10 of the W3C requirement. Sorry I
>> just didn't have enough time to continue. And the modularization section
>> of the W3C requirement doesn't seem like the easiest one (though it's
>> crucial!)
>>
>> Note that while doing this I found some problem with our requirements.
>> Some bad requirements apparently slept through.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>> @Karen, I let you judge whether it is appropriate to communicate this to
>> the W3C group. They may dislike the fact that our list is still not
>> clean. But I thought I'd give it a try, still.
>>
>> I won't have time to continue this before several days so if anyone
>> wants to continue (Stefanie?), feel free to do so!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>
|