@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix edu: <https://knobit.org/def/> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix schema: <https://schema.org/> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

<https://knobit.org/id/task/dso-technology-evaluation/I1> a edu:Question ;
    rdfs:label "I1 (3 points)"@en ;
    dcterms:license <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> ;
    owl:sameAs <https://bitbucket.org/reffa/ontology/id/task/dso-technology-evaluation/I1> ;
    schema:hasPart <https://knobit.org/id/register/data-storage-operations#SO-102> ;
    schema:identifier "I1" ;
    schema:position 2 ;
    schema:text "0.5 each. (a) EC-005 SQL support scores 5 for every candidate and decides nothing: removed from the weighted set. (b) EC-006 Vendor market share has no requirement behind it: removed or traced to a stated requirement. (c) CA-001's throughput score has no evidence: reported (moot once CA-001 is out, but still a finding). (d) The weights sum to 115: renormalised to 100 (proposed, for the decision owner). (e) EC-007 Licence cost and EC-008 Total cost of ownership count cost twice: one retired. (f) CA-003's recovery score rests on a vendor brochure: reported, with a restore test in the proof of concept asked for."@en .

edu:Question rdfs:label "Question"@en,
        "Küsimus"@et .

<https://knobit.org/id/register/data-storage-operations#SO-102> rdfs:label "dso-technology-evaluation I1: criteria and scores"@en .