It is easy enough to filter these out by searching on is:issue is:open -label:"use case" -label:requirements, but that still leaves 21 issues. I have given ten of those issues a new label, POSTPONED, because we have (in my recollection) flagged these as issues we want to take up later. These include
Column header names (unless this can be closed)
Things that can stand alone in rows, such as (maybe) shapeID or note
Where to store prefix definitions
Multiple values in cells
Relationship of profile to base vocabulary
Defining value constraints
Value type, value, and more
Modularity of descriptions (unless this can be closed)
Steps for minimal design
"Closing" shapes or profiles
For all but one of the twelve remaining issues, we had some great discussions about terminology, scope, and other basic issues, but AFAICT ended up resolving the issues on our calls. I have flagged some of these with a label good discussion. If we were to close at least some of these issues, that good discussion would not go away and would remain useful should we decide at some point to write a paper about the development of this model.
I have flagged one issue as CURRENT -- what to call the "prefixed" URIs that we use in our examples -- because I think this would be a good time to decide that and because, after some research, I am fairly satisified that the answer is clear. It would be great if we could just make a decision and close this one.
We currently have 66 open issues and just 2 closed issues. With so many open issues, the issue tracker has become hard to use.
Many of the issues are related to use cases and requirements:
It is easy enough to filter these out by searching on
is:issue is:open -label:"use case" -label:requirements, but that still leaves 21 issues. I have given ten of those issues a new label, POSTPONED, because we have (in my recollection) flagged these as issues we want to take up later. These includeFor all but one of the twelve remaining issues, we had some great discussions about terminology, scope, and other basic issues, but AFAICT ended up resolving the issues on our calls. I have flagged some of these with a label good discussion. If we were to close at least some of these issues, that good discussion would not go away and would remain useful should we decide at some point to write a paper about the development of this model.
I have flagged one issue as CURRENT -- what to call the "prefixed" URIs that we use in our examples -- because I think this would be a good time to decide that and because, after some research, I am fairly satisified that the answer is clear. It would be great if we could just make a decision and close this one.