W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Comments on Use Case Report

From: Daniel Vila <dvila@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:32:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEiZzvwVf6QZdMauW=jyDHZ2yaNakAN3ok65DVZveAbP2AsgAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: András Micsik <micsik@sztaki.hu>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Hi András,

Thank you very much for your detailed and useful comments on the report. I
will analyse them in detail and try to address them, but for now I wanted to
say that I do really appreciate the time you have taken reviewing the
report.

I will answer to this email as soon as I work on it.

Cheers,

Daniel

2011/7/8 András Micsik <micsik@sztaki.hu>

> Dear All,
>
>  please find below my comments on http://www.w3.org/2005/**
> Incubator/lld/wiki/**UseCaseReport<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport>
> .
>
> Andras
>
>
> In general, the heading style of scenarios within clusters in the
> generalized list makes it harder to read the document and to see its
> structure. Scenario titles are bolder than cluster titles and thus are too
> much emphasized.
>
> I wonder if there would be an option to avoid the long listing of
> individual use cases. It is too long to be read by any usually busy
> colleague. The one paragraph texts are too long for grasping the LD
> relations, and too short to understand the case fully. One possibility would
> be to filter some favourite use cases for each cluster. Another to provide
> visual groupings of clickable use case titles (without Use Case prefix,
> preferrably). By clicking on the title, the reader would get the full use
> case. Groupings can be based on:
> - the original clusters
> - imaginary use cases and working services/prototypes
> - 'atomic' use cases describing a well-defined and focused functionality
> (e.g. Use Case Subject Search)
>  vs. generic services (e.g. VIAF)
>  vs. content-centric approaches (e.g. Civil War Data 150)
>
> Below some smaller details regarding the text:
>
> --Bibliographic data:
>
> Semantics standardization => Semantic standardization
>
> ... ensuring a standard element set (and interpretable element values, if
> possible)
>
> Tagging web resources...: a simple example would be useful here to better
> understand what is being tagged and how.
>
> --Authority data:
>
> Metadata addition by users while uploading documents
> could be changed to:
> Authority data in the publication/authoring process
>
> --Vocabulary alignment:
>
> I'd put a sentence on the importance and example use of (controlled)
> vocabularies in libraries, unless the word vocabulary is well-known in this
> sense for most librarians. Multilingual discovery is possible using
> multilingual vocabularies.
>
> --Archives and heterogeneous data:
>
> Data management improvement subsection is written in 'imperative' style. I
> would emphasize data interoperability here by putting this word in a
> subsection title.
>
> --Citations:
>
> Publication representation enhancement => Machine understandable citations
> Navigation enhancement => Navigable citations
>
> --Summary of individual Use Cases:
>
> Use case Pode: enduser services
>
> Use case language technology: briding across languages
>
> The description of the Mendeley use case is slightly misleading: its main
> goal is "a more advanced way of understanding paper-paper, paper-researcher,
> and researcher-researcher relationships". The "existing Mendeley system"
> should be replaced with "current practice".
>
> Use case SEO: otpimizing
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 14:32:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 July 2011 14:32:57 GMT