Re: Use Cases

Hi Juan,
I agree with you, it will make it easier for a reader to understand
the story since it will connect the different parts of the document.
I think is not too conversational, since it's what we already said in
the motivations but more explicit.
Bye
Angela.


On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
> The general (or maybe only) use case is that we want to integrate our RDB
> data with other RDF. I think we all agree on that and given the conversation
> on Tuesday, this was a major consensus. However, behind that general use
> case, there are sub use cases which will explain why we want to integrate
> our RDB with RDF. These sub use cases include the following:
>
> Source: RDB (obviously)
> Destination: a data source in RDF.
>
> RDF that comes from structured source (RDB, XLS, CSV, etc)
> Existing RDF that is on the Web
> RDF that comes from unstructured sources (HTML, PDF, etc)
>
> Why do I make a distinction for the destination? Because I think that in
> order to tell a nice use case story, we need to care where the RDF comes
> from. And these are the scenarios (stories or use cases):
>
> I want to integrate my RDB with another structured source (RDB, XLS, CSV,
> etc), so I'll convert my RDB to RDF and assume my other structured source
> can also be in RDF.
> I want to integrate my RDB with existing RDF on the web (linked data), so
> I'll convert my RDB to RDF and then I'm able to link and integrate
> I want to integrate my RDB with unstructured data (HTML, PDF, etc), so I'll
> convert my RDB to RDF and assume my other unstructured source can also be in
> RDF.
> I'm not interested in integrating my RDB with other sources (structured,
> rdf, unstructured). However, I do want to expose my RDB as RDF because I
> want semantic web search engines that crawl RDF data to index me and I want
> to become a Linked Data hub and let other people link to me.
>
> Essentially points 1-3 are about integrating RDB with RDF. Point 4 is about
> just exposing it.
> This is what Dan and I were trying to explain in [1]. Is this too
> controversial? If so, why? If not, then what I propose and would like to do
> is have a use case that can tell a story for each of the 4 points. This
> could give us full coverage. Going over the Use Cases in [2], I see the
> following
>
> Integrating enterprise relational database for tax control clearly
> demonstrates point 1.
> The RNA use case demonstrates point 2
> The wordpress use case shows point 4 and we could create another use case
> from it in order to show point 3.
>
> I'm not sure where the other use cases would fit.
> So yes... the general use case is integrating RDB with RDF. But there are
> subcases in that general use case and we need to present usecases where
> readers feel that they fit in specifically... not just a general RDB2RDF.
> What do y'all think?
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements#R2ML_Application_Use_Case_Requirements
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#uc
>
> Juan Sequeda
> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> www.juansequeda.com
>

Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 07:07:49 UTC