RE: Closing of open (user story) issues

S19's connection to constraints is not clear. 

With S20 it is clearer because it is about creating data which needs to conform to constraints. 

In this context, one example of a constraint could be "if there is value in this field, then there must be value in that field" such as if a person enters or selects a program name for the "rewards program" field, they must enter their participant's ID number for the program. And vice-versa. 

The form may need to have this information so that it can enforce/encourage correct data entry without sending data to the server and, in fact, fields may appear dynamically on the form - if a reward program is selected, then the participant's ID field is shown. You can't express such co-dependence of properties in OWL.

Irene

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 2:53 PM
To: Simon Steyskal; Public-data-shapes Wg
Subject: Re: Closing of open (user story) issues

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You can check to see who raised an issue by looking at its page in tracker.
 I am the person who raised all these issues.  There has been no notification that I have noticed indicating that any change has been made to any of these user stories.



I do think that some of the user stories may have been changed.  I'll summarize my current thinking of the status of each of the relevant user stories here.

ISSUE-8 User story S6

This may have changed somewhat.  It appears to be asking for partial ontology import.  There is still no connection to constraints or shapes.

ISSUE-9 User story S7

The creator of this user story agrees that it is a repeat of S4, and can be removed.  I have updated the status.

ISSUE-11 User story S9

The continuing problem with user story S9 is that it asks for something to exist but not be specified.  It is unclear as to what that means.
Discussion on the user story may have cleared up the confusion, but the beginning of the story is still unclear.

ISSUE-12 User story S10

The description of the story is still very limited.

ISSUE-13 User story S12

This user story still contains no details as to what is supposed to be happening.

ISSUE-14 User story S14

This user story still has unresolved discussion.

ISSUE-15 User story S17

This story is about referring to part of a data set.  The connection to constraints is unclear, even though it talks about shapes.

ISSUE-16 User story S18

This story is about exporting part of an RDF graph.  It appears to be very similar to S17.  The connection to constraints is similarly unclear.

ISSUE-17 User stories S19 and S20

User story S19 is about querying to find out what should be in some data as opposed to constraints on what is in the data.  It is unclear what role constraints have in this story.

User story S20 is very similar to S19.  It is similarly unclear as to what role constraints have in this story.



peter



On 02/03/2015 10:59 AM, Simon Steyskal wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> May I ask the creators of issue:
> 
> ISSUE-8 ISSUE-9 ISSUE-11 ISSUE-12 ISSUE-13 ISSUE-14 ISSUE-15 ISSUE-16
> ISSUE-17
> 
> to check whether their issues were addressed and if so, if those 
> issues can be closed.
> 
> thx, simon
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU0SczAAoJECjN6+QThfjzH6UIAKnKrTJJ9DbLDietKH0lCCdP
Bosad2he2SLTFUglmRcp26pqBBGjtCey26iNZw8Svd8FoCvBT+bmecRaoeJW2U05
3De5mChFReKr2vg0JvKXX0UEtlMyHcF0zDqTOpbpM6PiJ14Ua9K12HpE0E4q3z2I
AAh912hqrjGhY7gFU5LmgvNVBSdbb8LtGLLtqi93L7keIOfJJHBX0aBmIJwKi9wd
iCueb5ZViHd35xwSyDXQftCrHoshJW0jdZLdZ15o6DtfLxpQbl2GPFple5bDo6Md
q0xU2oLXTmHJCXCCQr/Q3z3DgUvvHfTNPZts42A4dVppsiOABUc9fJZlxAWvXDk=
=pOYI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 21:21:18 UTC