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

Re: Comments on UC template

From: Matola, Tod <matolat@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:56:36 -0400
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C848C034.ED8B%matolat@oclc.org>
Hello,

We could look at these 2 cases?

1) the Swedish Union Catalogue [1] - enrich a record (point to dbpedia)
2) Linking to authority data [2] [3] [4].


[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.libraries.ngc4lib/4617
[2] 
https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1004&L=NGC4LIB&T=0&F=&S=&P=31709
[3] http://outgoing.typepad.com/outgoing/2009/09/viaf-as-linked-data.html
[4] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/

Cheers Tod.


On 6/23/10 3:38 PM, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks for starting the discussion indeed!
> 
> I had the same feeling as Emmanuelle re. the abstraction of the use cases of
> the Prov XG. I wouldn't refuse generic stuff, on the other hand. Our group is
> also to prepare the future, it would be nice if we could have some innovative
> scenarios as well.
> 
> Also, a constraint I'd be reluctant to impose is the "usage" aspect. While it
> is a crucial part of our mission, it could be that many institutions around us
> are just happy with publishing data (as part of a knowledge provider mission)
> and not developing new and complex usages themselves.
> 
> To sum it up I think we should both accommodate both generic, possibly very
> innovative "use cases" and concrete, maybe less ambitious "realizations". I
> guess I'm in line with what Jodi hinted, here.
> 
> In fact in SKOS we used the term "use cases", but we had a mixture of already
> implemented things and projects being still investigated.
> One crucial point is that all of them were starting from *existing data*.
> Would it be realistic to require a similar "reality check" constraint from the
> (use) cases we want to have? Or do you prefer to allow complete freedom?
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure that the "existing work" section that Kai's template feature
> could provide the hook for realizations. We'd just have to extend it a bit,
> maybe with some of the fields of the SKOS template [1] (I agree we don't need
> all the "describe your vocabularies" questions in the SKOS template).
> 
> I also really like some of the curation guidelines [3]. If we sent the
> template as a questionnaire to the community, we should try to use them to
> make the questions more precise!
> 
> Finally, there are two questions that I like in the SWEO template:
>> 7. Conclusions, which included a bulleted list of the main benefits of the
>> Semantic Web for your organization.
>> 8. It would be ideal if you could provide a quote from your senior management
>> as to how the Semantic Web solution provides additional value.
> 
> 
> Maybe we don't need two categories, but I think it would be nice to get some
> motivational talk for the cases, beyond the technical description!
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCFormat
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCCuration
> 
>> Thanks for getting this conversation started, Emmanuelle--and thanks,
>> Kai, for giving us something concrete to work with!
>> 
>> On 22 Jun 2010, at 21:57, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Some comments and questions regarding the Use Case Template [1].
>>> 
>>> First a very general comment : it is not really clear to me if we're
>>> looking for use cases scenarios (services that we imagine could be
>>> created), or use cases that provide a feedback on actual
>>> implentations, projects, etc. that are undertaken in libraries. In the
>>> charter, it looks like the latter was intended.
>> 
>> The main thing that stands out to me in the charter is
>> "help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web"
>> For me, this means taking a larger systems view, to ensure
>> interoperability beyond libraries. I'm very much in favor of soliciting
>> use cases for library/cultural heritage data widely, and hope we'll get
>> feedback from 'superpatrons' who want to use the data, as well as from
>> other organizations and businesses who may integrate bibliographic
>> details in their own environment.
>> 
>> Perhaps we're conflating multiple tasks? From what you say next, I start
>> to think that two related efforts could be useful:
>> 
>>> What I understood from last telecon was that in the Provenance group,
>>> the use cases were more theoretical, and were consolidated in a few
>>> scenarios.
>>> In the SWEO use cases [2], it is rather about describing an existing
>>> project/implementation.
>>> In the end, I think both ways are interesting, but I would be in favor
>>> of a specific section in the template to express if the use-case was
>>> implemented, by whom, and what was the outcome : was it successful,
>>> or not, and why.
>> 
>> As you mention, besides use cases, we could (separately) _inventory
>> existing *uses*_. Identifying existing Linked Data projects and
>> implementations in libraries, archives, museums, etc...
>>> 
>>> Small comment on the introduction of the template :
>>> "It should not be confused with specifying the technology itself: a
>>> use case may allow for many alternatives to achieving user needs."
>>> I wonder if really fits our goals : we want use cases that show how
>>> Linked data can help libraries achieve their tasks, not generic use
>>> cases for library tasks.
>> 
>> I think this could be clarified, but it helps to look, also, at the
>> previous line:
>> 
>> "A use case describes what a user can do with a system, by specifying a
>> sequence of interactions between user and system leading to a desirable
>> outcome."
>> 
>> That is, a use case is not an implementation. I agree that Linked Data
>> could be mentioned here for clarity!
>> 
>>> Here again, I think our focus is different from Provenance XG. For
>>> them, Linked Data is the context, and provenance data is the goal. For
>>> us, library data is the context, and Linked Data is the goal. Quite
>>> the opposite ;-)
>> 
>> Nicely said!
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regarding dimensions : related to my previous comments, I think we
>>> need to define library dimensions rather than Linked data dimensions.
>>> for instance I would suggest dimensions such as :
>>> - library catalogues for users :
>>> -- bibliographic data
>>> -- thesauri, authorities
>>> -- collaborative data (reviews, comments, tags)
>>> - library data exchanges (between libraries, B2B)
>>> - management data
>>> -- user logs or usage data
>>> -- loan information
>>> -- administrative & preservation metadata
>>> -etc.
>>> These are just a few ideas as a starting point.
>> 
>> These make sense to me, and I think you've highlighted the important
>> aspects from the library "business" perspective! We can give more
>> thought, then, to external uses and data exchanges. And determine
>> whether cultural heritage gives us additional dimensions (i.e. is rights
>> metadata worth its own category).
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Emmanuelle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCTemplate1
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
>>> 
>> 
>> -Jodi
> 
> 
> 


Cheers Tod
-- 
≥Systems, scientific and philosophic, come and go. Each method of limited
understanding is at length exhausted. In its prime each system is a
triumphant success: in its decay it is an obstructive nuisance.≤ -- Alfred
North Whitehead
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 11:57:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 June 2010 11:57:07 GMT