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

Re: Use case template -- user needs

From: Monica Duke <m.duke@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:00:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4C515137.20004@ukoln.ac.uk>
To: András Micsik <micsik@sztaki.hu>
CC: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 29/07/2010 10:26, András Micsik wrote:
> Dear All,
> We could use the information consumption lifecycle 
> (collect->interpret->analyze->synthesize->present->publish) as a lead 
> to get a hierarchical list of user needs. It is quite similar to 
> Karen's behaviours image. I tried to sort some of the existing terms:
> collect:
> - browse / explore / find / retrieve entities
> - to select an entity appropriate to the user’s needs
> - to acquire or obtain access to the entity
> interpret / analyze / synthesize:
> - to convert entities to another format
> - to merge selected entities with local data
> - to reason about selected entities
> - to enrich existing entities with more data
> - to identify an entity
> - to contextualise the entities by connecting them with other entities
> present / publish:
> - to create or update entities
> - to annotate, comment information
> - to visualize entities and their relations
> - Justify, to document the authority data creator’s reason
> - to make new entities accessible inside an information system
> - to provide new data as LOD
> Furthermore, I'd add "Knowledge bases" under "Non library information 
> systems"
> Social uses could be a yes/no property, it's quite hard to classify 
> all possible goals of social functionality.
> Andras
> Antoine Isaac írta:
>> 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.

I think (to me) the important overarching 'dimension' that needs to be 
crystallised is that the users/systems aren't simply passive consumers 
fo the data (I'm including searching/browsing in the sense of passive 
there) but that they are (potentially) active consumers - 
changing/contributing to that body of knowledge: the user-generated 
content aspect.  This can be by adding more instances (where allowed and 
appropriate) or (non-exclusive or!) by contextualising the data - 
commenting, annotating or linking the entities to other things (citing 
could be considered an instance of linking).

I'm not sure if I have explained that very well!

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:00:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:00:55 GMT