Re: Organizing Use Cases for F2F / Agenda proposal

  Dear Karen, dear all

  within an introductory part we may want to summarize the Status quo. Some questions to look at in a session 1) were: 
    
     - How is DCAT currently used?
     - Do data portals, catalogs etc. use DCAT core model or rely on a specific application profile?
     - What is the average complexity of DCAT Dataset descriptions?
     - Are some partitions of the vocabulary seldomly used or not at all (e.g. CatalogRecord, theme)? - This will inform about deprecation candidates
     - What user/service interfaces and search options are available in order to exploit the DCAT potential?

  Would the above support a hypothesis, that the main and obvious benefit of DCAT is its simplicity
  and brevity where, in the end, only a subset of the vocabulary is used? If this is the case, does
  it imply to be conservative in extending the core model and add only few, well argumented properties
  while substantially extending guidance on using the existing ones?

 Afterwards I suggest to sort and discuss the UCs according to a user/task-oriented perspective, i.e. how would the various 
 stakeholders make use of the DCAT concepts in order to perform their task (describe/publish/find/retrieve a data set etc.)

 *Catalog* 

   Some motivating questions:

    - How are the Catalogs found at all, e.g. using Web search engines that evaluate RDFa metadata?
    - How does DCAT support a data publisher to identify an appropriate (specialized) Catalog to publish her data?
    - E.g. are Concept schemes available/used as a means of annotation and browsing?

   Session 2)  
  
   - ID40: Discoverability by mainstream search engines
   - ID35: Datasets and catalogues
   - ID25: Distribution and synchronization of catalog information

   - Identification of missing UC with regard to Catalog

 *DataSet*

   Some motivating questions:

    - Is there a general guidance on (minimal) amount of detail for describing a data set?  
    - What are the search strategies to look for a data set?
    - How does temporal/spatial, keyword or theme annotation help data consumers to localise relevant data sets given a particular information need?

  Session 3 +4)

   Annotation properties, description and documentation
   - ID33: Summarization/Characterization of datasets

  Dataset concept analysis
  - ID8: Scope or type of dataset with a DCAT description
  - ID20: Modelling resources different from datasets
  - ID36: Cross-vocabulary relationships (comparision of Dataset concepts)

  Dataset (& Distribution) versioning 
  - ID6: Dataset Versioning Information

  Dataset co-relation and organization
  - ID32:Relationships between Datasets

  Dataset semantics
  - ID7: Support associating fine-grained semantics for datasets and resources within a dataset

  Session 5 + 6) 

  Data quality, precision and accuracy
  - ID15: Modeling data precision and accuracy
  - ID16: Modeling conformance test results on data quality
  - ID14: Data quality modeling patterns
  - ID23: Data Quality Vocabulary

  Scope and context
  - ID28: Modeling reference systems
  - ID29: Modeling spatial coverage
  - ID38: Time-related aspects
  - ID27: Modeling temporal coverage
  
  Provenance, actors and obligations
   - ID12: Modeling data lineage
   - ID13: Modeling agent roles
   - ID31: Modeling funding sources
 
   Usage control
   - ID17: Data access restrictions
  
   - Identification of missing UC with regard to Dataset
    
 Tuesday

  Session 7)

  *Distribution*
    
   Some motivating questions:
   - Are there distribution patterns evident from 1)?
   - How is an interactive Distribution endpoint to be described to enable human or service-based interaction?
   - Should we consider PUB/SUB protocols like MQTT?

  - ID1: DCAT packaged distributions

  Interactive, dynamic access
  - ID6: DCAT Distribution to describe web services
  - ID18: Modeling service-based data access
  - ID21: Machine actionable link for a mapping client
  - ID22: Template link in metadata

  - ID34: Relationships between Distributions of a Dataset

  - Identification of missing UC with regard to Distributon

 Session 8 + 9)

 *DCAT Profiles*

  - ID10: Requirements for data citation
  - ID10: Common requirements for scientific data
  - ID24: Harmonising INSPIRE-obligations and DCAT-distribution
  - ID37: Europeana profile ecosystem

 *Profile querying and negotiation*

  - ID2: Specifying media type interpretation beyond the content type
  - ID3: Combining multiple types of content sections in a single response
  - ID5: Discover available content profiles
  - ID30: Standard APIs for metadata profile negotiation

  - Identification of missing UC with regard to Profile handling

 Session 10)

 *Metamodel*
  - ID11: Modeling identifiers and making them actionable
  - ID19: Guidance on the use of qualified forms
  - ID26: Extension points to 3rd party vocabularies

  - Identification of missing UC with regard to meta-modeling, methodology etc.  

   Given the overall time frame of 12h I assumed approx. 60min + 10 min break per session. 

     Best regards 
   Jaroslav



 
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 21:13 CEST, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: 
 
> In preparing for the face-to-face, Caroline and I would like to ask the
> group, especially the UCR editors, to suggest what they see as the
> logical groupings for our discussion sessions. It would be ideal for us
> to have this by the end of the working day (European time) on Tuesday.
> 
> We have eight 90-minute slots that we can make use of. If we assume that
> at least part of the first slot will be introductions and establishing
> an overall working hypothesis, then we have 7 slots in which to discuss
> actual use cases. We may also wish to reserve 30 minutes at the end of
> the second day to prepare a list of missing use cases and immediate
> tasks relating to this deliverable.
> 
> Remember that the primary goal of the F2F meeting is to provide the UCR
> editors with the information and decisions that they need to create a
> First Public Working Draft of the Use Cases and Requirements. A FPWD is
> a "heart-beat" document that is not expected to be final but that gives
> the W3C management and community an indication of the direction of the
> group, as well as proof that it is indeed getting its work done. We will
> expect the UCR to be issued in additional versions as the work
> progresses. Our goal for the FPWD is to meet the August 9 W3C deadline
> for publishing documents, which means that the group needs to approve
> the document before that.
> 
> Also, it would be good to have by the end of the Oxford meeting an idea
> of how the DCAT group will proceed once the UCR FPWD is in place. We

> should also determine if the work so far informs the Profile and Content
> Negotiation groups, or if we have more to do in gathering use cases in
> those areas.
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 
 
 
 
-- 
Jaroslav Pullmann
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
User-Centered Ubiquitous Computing
Schloss Birlinghoven | D-53757 Sankt Augustin | Germany
Phone: +49-2241-143620 | Fax: +49-2241-142146

Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 22:18:39 UTC