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

Re: From the DO cluster tot the Citations cluster

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:03:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4CDAD052.1020509@few.vu.nl>
To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
CC: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, Kai Eckert <kai@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>, Asaf Bartov <asaf.bartov@gmail.com>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi,


>> I agree with Kai, there are certainly aspects to the Enhanced
>> Publications Case Study (aka Use Case) that invouse lve citation...but I
>> can also see why you in the Digital Objects group would want to use
>> it. I guess I don't understand why particular use cases need to be
>> "owned" by a particular cluster...
>
> I think the main reason is to make sure we don't lose track of any of the use cases.


Yep. I suppose there's nothing wrong about having a case in several clusters. But as in good ontology engineering practice, it is always better to start with a clean "backbone" tree to structure our thinking, before entangling it up by multiple inheritance or instantiation.

  
>> but if you are eager to use it
>> please feel free to.
>>
>> I really don't have any idea what we are supposed to be doing as far
>> as writing up something about the cluster. But I guess I'll wait to
>> hear more instructions from the chairs. FWIW, I also don't like having
>> this conversations off of the discussion list.
>
> ccing the list. :)


Yes, +1 for having that on the list :-)
If you want the personal opinion of one of the chairs, you should not expect too much of us on this :-)
More precisely, I think we have to accommodate some fuzziness at this stage.
The main idea of curating clusters is to come with material that is compatible with writing our final report, i.e., which is useful to the community. For the SKOS cases, we could afford directly putting 50% of the cases we had received  in the report. Here, given the number of cases we have received, we have to digest them a bit before.

One starting idea (sorry I don't remember who voiced that first, but it must be in the minutes) was to try to get some more consistent use cases from the diverse stuff that we have. I.e., do a bit of abstraction, see which are the scenario pieces that are common to the cases of one cluster (and later. probably, across clusters).
 From that perspective, what the the digital object cluster team has started can be very interesting, I think.

But as said, we should still be flexible. This group is lucky to have a very good team of participants, right now I wouldn't want to prevent anyone to circulate around some bright ideas on the matter ;-)

Cheers,

Antoine


>
> -Jodi
>
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Mark van Assem<mark@cs.vu.nl>  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Great, so I'll keep shepherding EP within our cluster.
>>>
>>> We also found that the scholarly debate UC (in your cluster) is not clear on
>>> whether they have accomplished creating the relationships they propose, or
>>> want to do it in the future. We have not found data confirming the former,
>>> you might want to contact the UC owner.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 05/11/2010 18:34, Kai Eckert wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mark and all,
>>>>
>>>> sorry for the late response, but I was totally busy since my return from
>>>> Pittsburgh, so I had no time to think about our cluster todos yet.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you, this basically reflects my problems with the proper
>>>> classification of the scientific data use case. I think we should define
>>>> the cluster by specific aspects and the use-cases (which in fact are
>>>> more case-studies and whole scenarioes instead of use-cases, but I
>>>> repeat myself ;-)) probably most of the time contain more than one aspect.
>>>>
>>>> So our cluster should be restricted to the pure citation aspect, and
>>>> citation at least means citation of two different things: other
>>>> publications and additional reference materials, like scientific data or
>>>> others, as mentioned in the EP use-case.
>>>>
>>>> So we probably will have some use-cases in common, the scientific data
>>>> use-case should also be split in this manner and handed over to you,
>>>> regarding the proper description of scientific data (or maybe to someone
>>>> else, this is only based on my recall of the clusters, haven't
>>>> investigated them further...).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Kai
>>>>
>>>> Am 29.10.2010 14:47, schrieb Mark van Assem:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Kai and Ed,
>>>>>
>>>>> We from the Digital Objects cluster (Jodi, Asaf, Mark) thought it
>>>>> would be useful to keep in contact with you as these clusters seem to
>>>>> overlap a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, I think that the EP UC belongs in our cluster [1], would
>>>>> you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Enhanced_Publications
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 17:03:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 November 2010 17:03:14 GMT