Hi Eric, hi all
I use an RDF module for our Drupal site.
So far, information about requirements is available in RDFa.
This is how is defined the
RDF mapping for requirements
-----
:requirement
a sioc:Item, foaf:Document ;
dc:title xsd:string ;
rdf:val:requirementClassification xsd:string ;
rdfval:useCases :useCase ;
rdfs:label xsd:string ;
skos:definition xsd:string ;
dcterms:description xsd:string ;
rdfval:examples xsd:string ;
rdfval:requirementCoverages requirementCoverage ;
rdfval:w3cRequirementsClassification xsd:string ;
rdfval:w3cAccepted xsd:boolean .
:useCase
a sioc:Item, foaf:Document .
:requirementCoverage
a sioc:Item, foaf:Document .
If you need another mapping I can change it of course.
I can also define mappings for other content types to RDFa.
I think this should be a nice export functionality.
Thomas
* Bosch, Thomas <[log in to unmask]> [2014-11-07 11:20+0000]
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to ask again if there is or if there is not a need for a new view for all W3C accepted requirements.
That would be great from my perspective.
I'm trying to show the shapes WG some profit from aligning with
DCAP. A view would at least reduce the impedance.
How hard is it to query the database? It'd be cool to auto-gen
http://www.w3.org/2014/10/rdfvalreqs/reqs.json from Drupal, or
simply make http://www.w3.org/2014/10/rdfvalreqs/?+Gsmall#reqs
query Drupal directly. Do you know some incantations for that?
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> Hi Karen, hi all,
>
> I like your idea having a new category for W3C accepted requirements.
> Is there common consensus?
>
> Do we need a dedicated view for all W3C accepted requirements?
> That could be a new sub menu as for our DC requirements.
>
> Would that be helpful?
> What do others think?
>
>
> 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 Karen Coyle
> Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 15:08
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Accepted Requirements, Day 1 of TPAC
>
> The following requirements were accepted by the W3C Shapes group:
>
> RESOLVED: accept R-103
> RESOLVED: R111, "Basic use cases covered by constraint language", and
> R176, "high-level vocab for common cases" are redundant against R103
> RESOLVED: accept R184 defined as "concise language" as a requirement
> RESOLVED: accept R147 "addressable schemas" and R148 "addressable
> constraints" as requirements
> RESOLVED: accept E08 "Discover shapes" defn: "annotate shapes and query
> over annotations"
>
> E08 is new, and I wasn't there for the discussion, so I will find out
> more about it today and report back.
>
> For now, I will add these resolutions as comments in the Req DB. We may
> want a new category for W3C accepted requirements.
>
> kc
> p.s. the meeting is going well, as you might surmise from this. I'll
> send a longer note over the weekend. Day 1's IRC notes:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-shapes-minutes.html
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
--
-ericP
office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
([log in to unmask])
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
