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

Re: Use case template -- user needs

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:08:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4C5136E2.8000008@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Marcia,

Trying to revive that before this afternoon's discussion...

I agree with the importance of exploring, but can't it be just merged with "browse"?

Btw there were still some elements remaining from our discussion at [1] which I have tried to fit in the dimensions [2], assuming that Gordon's silence was agreement ;-)

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Jul/0022.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions


> Thanks for all the great work on getting the USE CASE template there.
>
> At the *Dimensions *page, currently the template has:
>
>     * Users needs
>           o Identify
>           o Browse
>           o Access
>           o Retrieve
>           o 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
>     <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
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 08:08:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 July 2010 08:08:36 GMT