W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Use case: tiger map/census data: have it your way

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:31:34 +0200
Message-Id: <368D4CEC-7988-11D8-995D-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "ext Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

On Mar 18, 2004, at 17:33, ext Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Dan:
>> But I agree with Patrick: a good way to get a sense of it is to tell
>> each other stories about it and see if those stories line up.
> Expressability in technical terms shouldn't be a gating criteria for a 
> use
> case.  If "expressed in terms of" is not restrictive, then fine.  But 
> if it
> is restrictive, if use cases are not considered, or not considered as
> significant, if they aren't expressed in technical terms then I think 
> we
> loose out.

I don't mean it to be restrictive, only to reflect our expectations
of what the DAWG recommendation might address.

It's a bit like the blind men and the elephant. Each is talking about
their personal experience (use cases) in terms of what they all think
is a shared point of reference (the DAWG recommendation). At some
point, after a good bit of confusion, they ultimately reach a general
concensus about what that thing is.

So, my use cases may reflect a possible realization of the DAWG
rec that your use cases may reflect a slightly different realization,
and through the process of understanding each others use cases, and
how those use cases are presumably facilitated by the DAWG 
we are able to come to a concensus about some intersection of 
and then get to work on making an actual rec.

So, just because one of my use cases may suggest that the rec would
govern a particular characteristic of a conformant application, does
not mean that you have to agree and make your use cases reflect the
same coverage.



> 	Andy
> ----Original Message----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: 18 March 2004 15:13
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: Patrick Stickler; RDF Data Access Working Group
> Subject: RE: Use case: tiger map/census data: have it your way
>> On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 09:03, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Patrick:
>>>> I think it's useful if our use cases are expressed in terms of
>>>> the anticipated DAWG recommendation,
>>> While I have sympathy with having use cases be framed in terms of the
>>> future rec (i.e. diving into tehtechnical), I am also aware that, as
>>> a group, we do not have a sense of what that recommendation is.
>> But I agree with Patrick: a good way to get a sense of it is to tell
>> each other stories about it and see if those stories line up.
>> I think what he's suggesting echoes another one of the qualities
>> of the ideal use case that I gave earlier:
>> "
>> The ideal use cases will
>>   -- clarify one or more requitements
>> "
>> My hasty use case description fell short of ideal on that count.
>>>   I like the qualities Dan
>>> provided as they are outwardedly focused, not technology focused.
>>> Getting engagement with the wider audience means talking about the
>>> value provided and less about the "how".
>> Yes, the outward focus is critical. But the "how" needs to be in
>> there somewhere, eventually.
>>> So I see use cases serving as input to a refinement step.  Let's not
>>> jump too early and only make use cases a technical description.  The
>>> need for a technical feature needs to be backed with an illustrative
>>> use otherwise it is a requirement with unclear value.
>>> If we find that many use cases are covered by one technical aspect,
>>> then that's good.  We will come out of the first phase with concise
>>> requirments that cover a range application/user needs.
>>> 	Andy


Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 04:35:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:42 UTC