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 10:22:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4C513A58.7010600@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Karen,

That's an interesting view indeed. But maybe it's better to keep it for us for a later fine-grained analysis of the cases we got, and not for external use case providers. As you say it, this is really complex and I think it could prove deterring.

What would be interesting is to test the current classification at [1] against yours, to see if we should add another general category there. To me:
- "discover" overlaps with "Browse / explore / select", "Access / obtain" and "Retrieve / find"
- "gather" overlaps with "Integrate / contextualize" and "Justify"
- "create" overlaps with "Add information / annotate / comment"

That leaves with "share" which is not obviously present in the current state. We could add it, maybe also adding the "cite" suggested by Monica [2]
though she linked it to "annotate / comment" in her mail.

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Jul/0030.html

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 08:23:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 July 2010 08:23:22 GMT