W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > March 2007

Comments on Use Case document

From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:11:21 +0100
Message-Id: <19E1B815-6071-498D-8996-80AE5E2AC6F0@manchester.ac.uk>
To: SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Comments on the Use Case and Requirements Draft

== General comments. ==

The current draft displays some evidence of cut and paste :-). There
is some inconsistency between the presentations of the various use
cases. Some have clearly been edited, while others are still close to
the raw format. There are differing levels of granularity in the
section and some sections still include the headings from the

== 2.1 ==

[[The application enables search based on free text queries]].

I assume this is search of the /metadata/, but perhaps this should be
made clear.

== 2.3 ==

In this section there is a somewhat "throwaway" comment that

[[Currently the Agrovoc system lacks distributed maintenance, but it
is expected that a new system will soon solve this problem]]

I would imagine that the problems of distributed management and
maintenance would introduce many requirements on a scheme, in
particular relating to provenance.

== 2.4 ==

In the product life cycle use case:

[[It may be useful, where ontologies diverge, to map terms between
the diverging branches, either to indicate where terms can be
harmonized to their equivalent, or to identify that there is no exact

I found this a little unclear. Is this calling for conceptual mapping
links that indicate /inequivalence/?

== 2.6 ==

In this section (BIRNLex), there's a great deal of information
here, but without actually explicitly introducing or stating any
requirements. The voice of the section differs from others (e.g. it
talks about what "we" will do and "our" intentions, which I assume are
not those of the WG).

== 2.7 ==

In this section (RadLex) in contrast, there is a very short piece
describing the functionality, followed by a number of requirements,
without so much detail motivating those requirements. Later in 2.7,
there is a large list of relationships used among terms. This could
probably be condensed down.

== 2.8 ==

Includes a chunk of sample SKOS. Is this needed here?


In R-CompatabilityWithOWL-DL, there is a requirement that SKOS should
comply with OWL-DL. What does this mean? There is also a statement
that this may require OWL to change -- is this document an appropriate
place for such a statement?


Is there also a case for Provenance information relating to a single
vocabulary (cf the comments relating to Use Case 2.3 above)?


Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 09:11:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:49 UTC