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

Re: wiki page for use cases?

From: Matola, Tod <matolat@oclc.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:34:14 -0400
To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C84DF2E6.EF84%matolat@oclc.org>
Jodi,

To make the use case notes [1] into a wiki page easier to find and work
with. 

Cheers Tod.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseNotes

On 6/27/10 2:29 PM, "Jodi Schneider" <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote:

> 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
>> -- 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Cheers Tod
-- 
''You begin saving the world by saving one man at a time; all else is
grandiose romanticism or politics.''
   Charles Bukowski
Received on Monday, 28 June 2010 10:43:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 June 2010 10:43:44 GMT