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

Re: Comments on UC template

From: Matola, Tod <matolat@oclc.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:04:58 -0400
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C84CB6AA.EF45%matolat@oclc.org>
Hello,

 Looking over Ed's talk [1] I was able to name another case or two

- Bibliographic Networks, use Linked Data to reflect the relationships
across the FRBR entities. Link editions, translations, media formats. Link
people to all of their works. So discovery is better, delivery is
better,....
(NOTE: I hope I'm using network in the right context here.)

- Link Social Bibliography to a Bibliographic Network. Link reveiws, tags,
lists, cover art to a work. This seems like a variation on the enrich a
record use case.  

Cheers Tod.

[1] http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/06/24/confessions-of-a-graph-addict/

On 6/24/10 7:56 AM, "Matola, Tod" <matolat@oclc.org> wrote:

> 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


Cheers Tod
-- 
³OS/360 is like a cow.² Itıs not the most beautiful or efficient, and many
people think they can design a better one. But if you put hay and water in
one end, you get fertilizer from the other end and milk from the middle. You
can use it effectively if you recognize its limitations and remember which
end is which. -- Harlan Mills
Received on Sunday, 27 June 2010 12:10:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 27 June 2010 12:10:37 GMT