Thank you very much Karen,
Someone(?) mentioned that we are missing a section for the 'rationale'
in the db. Presumably that will be explained further as further work is
done.
Does this mean that there is a rationale missing for each requirement?
Should I add such a field for 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: Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2014 21:48
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: [RDF AP] Notes from first W3C RDF-SHAPES meeting
Here are my notes from the first W3C RDF-SHAPES working group meeting.
Eric Prud'hommeaux asked for someone to attend from the DCMI group as
they would discuss the use of the RDFReqs[1] database. It does sound
that they are going to try very hard to use the database and share
requirements with us. They have their first f2f meeting in just a few
weeks. I'm hoping that we can arrange for a DC liaison for the group, so
I have set some wheels in motion.
kc
W3C shapes group first meeting
15/10/2014 Oct 15
Arnaud Le Hors of IBM chairing, and EricP is the W3C contact
In the future, meetings will be limited to WG members who are all W3C
members
Arnaud making a case for use case analysis
problem: there hasn't been a solution so people have come up with their
own - and they feel strongly about keeping their won solution because
it's already baked into software (and often products)
Peter Patel-Schneider: use cases should be specific and examinable
Sumit: can this group extend sparql? Eric: yes, because there is no
other working group on it
Arnaud: TPAC f2f at end of October
2 days: first on use cases, second on technologies
there will be call-in capabilities
use cases in W3C have in the past typically been documents
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-31-requirements/#json (example)
could link use cases to specifications, and then discuss and decide
in/out scope
ericP now talking about DC database
says that it is not yet analyzed through internal review ("in progress")
puts out hierarchical review link
http://www.w3.org/2014/10/rdfvalreqs/#R7
Says that W3C group should pay most attention to the DC requirements
Then one would add what each requirement looks like in spin/owl/shex,
etc. so that these solution can be compared.
Peter P-S: many of the requirements point back to long documents that no
one will have time to read. We need more concise requirements.
Ralph has developed an ontology for requirements that we will try out
with the data from the RDFReq database
Someone(?) mentioned that we are missing a section for the 'rationale'
in the db. Presumably that will be explained further as further work is
done.
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|