W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > November 2008

Re: use cases and how to contribute -- Re: Semantic MyPage Use Case

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:46:13 +0100
Cc: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Steinar Skagemo <sskagemo@gmail.com>, Kjetil Helberg <kjetil@helberg.no>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>, Kevin Novak <kevinnovak@aia.org>
Message-Id: <82AC946A-B7A9-4D76-A105-6544E80E5B52@w3.org>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>

El 12/11/2008, a las 10:29, Kjetil Kjernsmo escribió:
> On Tuesday 11 November 2008 18:16:30 Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>> Hi Kjetil, Steinar and Kjetil (again :)
>> Thanks very much for contributing this one. I've only skim read it  
>> but
>> looks very interesting.
>> This made me think of a current limitation we have. We can only
>> acknowledge contributions of people in the Group and I beliee we
>> should change this to be more flexible. Here's an idea.
>> Are you familiar with SWEO?
>>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/
> Yup, I was a member of the group. :-)

Ah, great. Didn't check! :)

>> See the use cases they've been compiling at:
>>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
>> We could use a two step process. Wiki for drafting use cases and
>> compilation of ideas, etc. then publish them at eg.
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/public/UseCases/
>> This would let us ack people properly and people to retain copyright
>> of the submitted use case as needed, granting a free use license, so
>> to say.
>> If we do it this way, it'll be an constantly updated compilation of
>> use cases rather than a few published in a Note. We might want to
>> rethink what to put in the Note though.
> I've been thinking about a two-stage process all along, but this has  
> perhaps
> not been articulated.

AFAIK, not yet.

> I think the SWEO Use Cases are quite different from ours. The SWEO  
> Use Cases
> and Case Studies were more of a showcase for Semantic Web, to show  
> people
> what Semantic Web technologies are actually used for, whereas I  
> think of our
> Use Cases as more of a guideline for further work within the group.  
> This is
> more aligned with the work done in POWDER and EXI and predecessors.
> The idea with these Use Cases documents is that the scope of the  
> group should
> be limited by actual usage needs, and also that the deliverables  
> should make
> sure that the projected needs can be met.
> I've been thinking that this is the model we should follow. So, what  
> I would
> have in mind is a relatively open submission process with wiki-style  
> editing.
> The IG should chop the use cases up in pieces and distill it into a  
> few use
> cases that several members of the group can agree on. For example,  
> Steinar
> has allready told me that there is considerable overlap with his Use  
> Case and
> Use Case 10.

Agree with your point. I was using SWEO as a simple example on the way  
we could proceed, but agree on that the content and purpose is  
different for our case.

> I think we should publish a Note, since this Note should be a  
> guiding and
> scoping document for further work, but it does not need to be an  
> aggregation
> of the submitted Use Cases. To the contrary, the Use Cases published  
> in the
> Note should contain descriptions of problems that IG members are  
> willing to
> address or have partners that will address. The more members willing  
> to work
> on a problem, the better. If no members are willing to work on a Use  
> Case, it
> should not go into the Note, but may of course be in the Use Cases  
> Wiki.

Sounds good to me and I hope the current section "Identified problems  
or limitations" of the Use Case Template would give us good ideas on  
challenges and issues that need to be addressed.

> This also implies that some distillation is needed, that Use Cases  
> admitted to
> the note are issues where IG members find common ground, unless one  
> member is
> deeply committed to something that other members also find  
> interesting but is
> not assigning resources to.

Do you have an opinion on how we should conduct this process? Would  
you choose out of the ones in the wiki or would you try to identify  
overlap and develop more generic ones based on those for the Note?

> I think that IP rights to to finished Note will not be so much of an  
> issue,
> since they will differ considerably from the original submissions.  
> We may
> still credit the original submittors, like "Based on a submission by  
> Foo
> Agency and Bar Inc."

...and, of course, have their permission to publish them anyway.

I think this (partially) answers my question above.

> So, I feel the Wiki period is a brainstorm period, but that the  
> group should
> distill this quite soon into a Note, which will "set in stone" the  
> issues
> that the group should work to solve in the rest of the work.

I could not attend the Chairs call last week, but hope John could  
debrief it today and give us an update on the Activity Plan. John  
mentioned that we should try to publish a first working draft by mid  

> I'm really sorry that I didn't make it to the face-to-face meeting,  
> since I'm
> sure many ideas were articulated there.

I'd say we mainly worked on scoping the work to be done, which has  
been a gigantic task from the very beginning. That's why the topic  
areas identified mean a lot to me.


> Kind regards
> Kjetil Kjernsmo
> -- 
> Senior Knowledge Engineer
> Mobile: +47 986 48 234
> Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com
> Web: http://www.computas.com/
> Computas AS  PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax: 
> +47 6783
> 1001
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 12:46:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:39 UTC