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

Re: wiki page for use cases?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:05:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4C289E08.6010109@few.vu.nl>
To: "Matola, Tod" <matolat@oclc.org>
CC: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Tod, Jodi,

Thanks! To make it more centralized, I have adapted [2] to point to it.


[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCases#Cases

> 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
Received on Monday, 28 June 2010 13:05:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:54 UTC