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

wiki page for use cases?

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:29:28 +0100
Message-Id: <950C35DE-322C-4173-A234-A89525EC7A2C@deri.org>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
I'm wondering if we're ready to create a wiki page for use cases, even if we're not yet sure how we'll format/share them in the future.

I think it's going to be easier to keep track of these as we go along than fish them out of the listserv later. (Thanks, Tom, btw, for the useful ideas!)

-Jodi

On 27 Jun 2010, at 13:04, Matola, Tod wrote:

> 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
> -- 
> OS/360 is like a cow. Its 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 18:30:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 27 June 2010 18:30:17 GMT