RE: [RIF][UCR] Publication use case

Hi Christian,

Thanks for your work.

> The benefit I see in using the "brain ontology" example over
> the SKOS+FOAF ones to illustrate the "publication" UC, is that
> is has both aspects (specifying the meaning of a vocabulary, 
> as in the SKOS example, and specifying how to use the data,
> as in the FOAF example, as well). The point is that the
> "brain ontology" example makes it clear that it is one single
> use case, indeed, and not two different ones artificially put 
> together.

I agree. The earlier version wasn't as detailed as other subsections.

> But I also like the idea of pointing to examples showing that
> you can have only one of the aspects, too; which is why I support
> having a short paragraph for the SKOS and the FOAF examples as
> well (plus, they are great because they are so simple).

So do I, so I decided to start off with these simpler examples and "build up" toward the detailed "brain ontology" one (as done for some of the other subsections). I feel that the FOAF rules should be left in since they nicely demonstrate the "how data should be used" aspect.

It's now here (post-restructuring):
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Publication

David

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Christian de Sainte Marie
Sent: Mon 2/13/2006 4:43 PM
To: Ginsberg, Allen; David Z. Hirtle; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: [RIF][UCR] Publication use case
 

David,

I edited the alternative version of the text for GUC "publication", to 
simplify it wrt the SKOC and FOAF examples (per your remarks last week).

The benefit I see in using the "brain ontology" example over the 
SKOS+FOAF ones to illustrate the "publication" UC, is that is has both 
aspects (specifying the meaning of a vocabulary, as in the SKOS example, 
and specifying how to use the data, as in the FOAF example, as well). 
The point is that the "brain ontology" example makes it clear that it is 
one single use case, indeed, and not two different ones artificially put 
together.

But I also like the idea of pointing to examples showing that you can 
have only one of the aspects, too; which is why I support having a short 
paragraph for the SKOS and the FOAF examples as well (plus, they are 
great because they are so simple).

Anyway, here it is: 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIFUCR_-_Use_Cases_-_Publication2

Christian