That's a good idea, thank you Karen
Thomas
I don't thing that the W3C group came up with a formal label, but they
did re-word the meaning of the requirement in their own words. Those I
can add to the comments, and we can consider them as we review the
requirements. (ACTION: Karen: add comments for each W3C accepted
requirement)
kc
On 11/8/14 3:34 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote:
> Hi Karen, hi Eric, hi all,
>
> I created a view showing all W3C accepted requirements as a first step:
> http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=requirements/w3c-requirements
>
> If you edit requirements you now have the possibility to state if the requirement is W3C accepted (a boolean value).
>
> I also set the requirements Karen told us as W3C accepted ones.
>
> Do we need an additional field for requirements 'W3C label'?
>
>
> Cheers,
> 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.
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|