W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Use case template -- user needs

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:07:42 -0700
Message-ID: <20100719110742.mnplwno74w0sgco0@kcoyle.net>
To: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
I realize that this is not in accord with FRBR, but I happen to favor  
this more complex view of user behaviors:
   http://kcoyle.net/temp/behaviors.jpg

Not all of them are primarily related to library metadata, but most of  
them could use library metadata for tasks that take place outside of  
the catalog. (One of my main criticisms of the FRBR tasks is that it  
assumes library data is in a library system silo, and doesn't  
recognize other uses.)

kc

Quoting "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>:

> Thanks for all the great work on getting the USE CASE template there.
>
> At the Dimensions page, currently the template has:
>
>  *   Users needs
>     *   Identify
>     *   Browse
>     *   Access
>     *   Retrieve
>     *   Integrate
>
> Suggest to add:
>               . Explore
>
> The current listed users needs seemed to be good for the   
> bibliographic data.  If it is for subject authority data, there   
> should be an 'Explore' added.  It is a task included in FRSAD   
> (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data, which is   
> released [1] and will be published by IFLA).  Gordon already   
> mentioned this in his email (see his 7/8/10 email).  He has the best  
>  overview of all three FRBR family models' harmonization, which also  
>  includes the user tasks identified by three models.
>
> Users use subject authority data (e.g. any thesaurus, subject   
> headings list, taxonomy, classification...) to explore relationships  
>  between subjects and/or their appellations (e.g., to explore   
> relationships in order to understand the structure of a subject   
> domain and its terminology).  This task is seen not only among   
> information professionals but also end-users. The task was   
> introduced by FRSAR Working Group based on a subject authority data   
> use survey which received nearly 800 responses worldwide. [2]
>
> Marcia
>
> [1] http://www.ifla.org/node/1297
> [2] Ibid., p. 33 and p.36.
>
> On 7/12/10 5:21 PM, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Emmanuelle,
>
>
>> I've started the work on merging the templates as intended in our last call.
>> I didn't create a new page, but rather improve the existing one, as
>> the changes were very limited (introduction + dimensions). Also we can
>> always roll back to an older version.
>>
>> So the following 3 pages have changed :
>> [1] merged the introductions and changed the "Linked data   
>> dimensions" paragraph
>> [2] added references to the rationale page
>> [3] simplified the dimensions page.
>>
>> There is still work to be done on the dimensions' content.
>>
>> Feedback welcome
>>
>> Cheers
>> Emmanuelle
>
>
> Thanks a lot for this! Now that I read the text you've moved to the   
> intro of the template [1], it really looks like we-could re-use it   
> almost as such for the wider call for use case we envision :-)
>
> Re. feedback on the content of the template, my most important   
> comment concerns the use of the "dimensions" at [3] in the sections   
> of the use case template [1].
> My first understanding of the "library linked data dimension"   
> section, based on the "dimensions" of the Prov XG [4] initially   
> there [5], is that this section would be rather technical,   
> implementation-driven. In fact, to me the examples for filling the   
> "library linked data dimension" section should come from the   
> "topics" that we assembled over the past weeks (now at [6]). [4] is   
> really closer from [6] than it is from [3].
>
> I tried to point in the last call that our use case dimensions at   
> [3] would be most useful for "stimulating" (re-using Stu's perfectly  
>  fitting word) the filling of the "use case" section. And I still   
> believe it should be the case, looking at the instruction you left   
> for that section:
> [The use case scenario itself, described as a story in which actors   
> interact with systems, each other etc. It should show who is using   
> linked data technology and for what purpose. Please mark the key   
> steps which show requirements on linked data in italics.
> ]
> I think all the categories at [3] can fall in this description.   
> Maybe only "systems" may fall as well in the "background and current  
>  practice" section.
>
>
> Now, I think the point on which we fundamentally agree (and which   
> may explain the above disagreement ;-) ) is that *the "use case   
> dimensions" at [3] should stimulate something that comes before what  
>  the "linked data topics" at [6] would stimulate*.
> The more I look at it, the more I wonder why the Prov XG had put   
> their "provenance dimensions" before their "goal" and "use case   
> scenario". I can see a logic here, but it's one of someone with a   
> quite clear view on the domain's technical points--the Prov XG   
> provided the UCs themselves--not necessarily the one of a true   
> application owner (i.e., "business"-oriented).
>
>
> I would thus suggest to have the following order:
> 1. Name; 2. Owner; 3. Background and Current Practice; 4. Goal; 5.   
> Use Case Scenario [suggesting the use case dimensions at [3]); 6.   
> Problems and Limitations; 7. Library Linked Data Dimensions   
> (pointing to the topics at [6]; 8 Unanticipated Uses (optional); 9   
> Existing Work (optional)
>
> This could have the benefit of illustrating the natural   
> complementarity between "problems and limitations" and "LLD   
> dimensions". For many of the Prov XG's use cases, I feel that it is   
> the informal gathering of problems that leads to the more formal   
> identifications of the dimensions.
>
> Would people around here agree?
>
>
> On a much smaller scale, I was not so-happy with making the   
> distinction between "devices" and "communication" in the use cases   
> dimensions at [3]. There is a distinction indeed, but I'm not sure   
> we want to get that granularity here.
>
> But as said it is indeed much less important, and I realize I've   
> already written one page on the order of the sections of the   
> template alone so I'll stop here :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCTemplate1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCRationale
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Provenance_Dimensions
> [5]   
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=UCTemplate1&oldid=86#Linked_Data_Dimensions
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics3
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've started the work on merging the templates as intended in our last call.
>> I didn't create a new page, but rather improve the existing one, as
>> the changes were very limited (introduction + dimensions). Also we can
>> always roll back to an older version.
>>
>> So the following 3 pages have changed :
>> [1] merged the introductions and changed the "Linked data   
>> dimensions" paragraph
>> [2] added references to the rationale page
>> [3] simplified the dimensions page.
>>
>> There is still work to be done on the dimensions' content.
>>
>> Feedback welcome
>>
>> Cheers
>> Emmanuelle
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCTemplate1
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCRationale
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions
>>
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 18:08:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 July 2010 18:08:21 GMT