Re: [SKOS] Review of SKOS Use Cases and Requirements

Hi Sean and Elisa,

Thank you very much for the comments! I've quickly read them, and all 
the points you raise seem more than apropriate.
I suppose we'll come back to you when we try to address them, hopefully 
in the coming days.

Cheers,

Antoine


> All,
>
> Sorry for the delay in getting this out.  I'm in a meeting at the OMG 
> technical meeting in San Diego, and was just able to get the wireless 
> to work.
>
> Overall -- I agree substantially with Sean's comments.  There appears 
> to be  some inconsistency in the level of detail across use cases.  
> This may be because of inconsistencies in the submitted use cases, but 
> could possibly be allieviated by introducing a bit more structure 
> across use cases, e.g.,
> Summary, Required SKOS Features, Detailed Description, Link(s) to 
> Complete Use Case Submission, and consistent subheadings if used.  
> This is there informally, but providing the same headings for each use 
> case, and collecting required elements in one place for each might 
> make this easier to read. 
>
> I think it would be useful to provide comments on the vocabulary 
> maintenance /methodology/ in all cases (if known) as well (of course, 
> I'm biased, but it's there in a number of cases), but for example, I'm 
> not sure that maintenance in Protege is what I mean by this. If we 
> know it, information regarding the methodology would be useful for 
> readers (i.e., organization and process related insights), even if 
> it's a short sentence, again consistently across use cases. The same 
> is true for information regarding the size and coverage scope for 
> each.  These could be managed in consistent subheadings under detailed 
> description.
>
> Introduction - this section could do with another detailed editing 
> pass, but provides a decent introduction to the document itself. 
>
> Use case 2.4 - I agree that this one is a bit muddy, and 2.6 might not 
> need all of the examples; some of the detail captured in subheadings 
> could simply be bulletized.  I also agree with Sean on 2.7 -- I'm not 
> sure that all of the detail on metadata and relationships among terms 
> used are needed, but one or two additional summary motivation 
> sentences would help.
>
> Other use cases should be under a separate heading, perhaps 
> clustered/categorized to a degree if possible.
>
> Numbering over sections also needs to be fixed (at least in the 
> emailed version I have from Antoine), and additional structure in the 
> requirements section, clustering of requirements, etc. would be 
> helpful for readability.
>
> Also, some kind of concluding paragraph regarding summary of findings, 
> next steps, etc. would help balance the document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Elisa