-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Using dictionary pairs for requirement history #710
Comments
The issue is going to be discussed by the DILCIS Board |
I have nothing to opose to this suggestion. Its just better documentation. |
The DILCIS Board have agreed to approve this suggestion on its meeting 2023-12-06. |
This can go ahead then. This will need a proper pass over the specifications but @stephenmackey and I should be able to get it done for some time in Feb 2024. |
@johnmackey actually, way beyond me. 😊
Stephen Mackey
Senior Consultant
Penwern Limited
+33 668 397 453
***@***.***
From: Carl Wilson ***@***.***>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 12:08 AM
To: DILCISBoard/E-ARK-CSIP ***@***.***>
Cc: Stephen Mackey ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [DILCISBoard/E-ARK-CSIP] Using dictionary pairs for requirement history (Issue #710)
This can go ahead then. This will need a proper pass over the specifications but @stephenmackey<https://github.com/stephenmackey> and I should be able to get it done for some time in Feb 2024.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#710 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIKSFYJ6FTPQONTBLJVM3DDYNR357AVCNFSM6AAAAAA4PSKGDOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQOBRHE3DENJYGM>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
The suggestion is:
Board members acknowledgment of the issue:
Voting Tick the box in front of you name to say yes to the suggestion.
|
7 DILCIS Board members have acknowledge the issue The suggestion of updated encoding of requirement addition will be part of the next release of the specifications. Issues will be created in the relevant repositories. |
Record the version of the specification in which a requirement was introduced. The validation developers have requested the field. Implementation could be fairly simple, again the examples have had the current XPath and Cardinality information removed see #707 :
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: