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

Re: Curating the Goals of Use Cases

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:27:02 +0000
Cc: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <47DF4573-2AB2-478C-8F41-E80015A8DBD0@deri.org>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@FEW.VU.NL>
On 11 Nov 2010, at 18:17, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> Mark, Jodi,
> 
> 
>>> I noticed that the description of goals tend to overlap, and worded completely different.
>>> 
>>> Can't we curate the different goals just as we did for Requirements and Topics? And then assign them "by code" to the UCs?
>>> 
>>> I went through the UCs in the Digital Objects cluster and came up with these Goals, see details below.
>>> 
>>> Would you agree this is useful?
>> 
>> Yes! We discussed the various Goals in the Digital Objects Cluster discussion last night. I think it's really useful to think about the goals of each use case, and to come up with shared terminology.
>> 
>> This is based on the thought that of the 40+ use cases, we will likely need to collapse to fewer than 10 for the end report. I'm hoping we won't lose any of the important points (though this will be challenging).
>> 
>> Our cluster is continuing to discuss the taxonomy that Mark devised:
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Digital_Objects#Categorized
>> You're most welcome to join in the discussion and editing.
>> 
> 
> 
> I think this is really helpful.  Thanks a lot for doing that stuff.
> At some point it will be interesting to compare your list [1] to the user need we had in the "dimensions" [2]. But this can be done at a later stage. I like this list to be built bottom-up, rather than impose a pre-existing grid.
> 
> Otherwise a small comment on naming. You make the distinction between RELATE and ASSOCIATE, based on whether the target link between entities exist in the data or is discovered as part of the case's scenario. To me this also suggest the links would be of different (semantic) types. If it is not the case, then I prefer the qualifier approach you had for the previous list [3], where you had RELATIONS and RELATIONS-NEW (just to make it 100% clear, it's the qualifier I like; on RELATIONS vs RELATE I have strictly no opinion ;-)).

This makes sense, Antoine. I've changed it to RELATE (EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS) and RELATE (ADD NEW RELATIONSHIPS). Both of those are a mouthful--perhaps somebody can revise
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals
to use more concise words!
Make relationships
MAP: create equivalence relationships (owl:sameAs, skos:closeMatch) between value vocabularies or data items.
RELATE (EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS): represent relationships between the entities that already existed in the data
RELATE (ADD NEW RELATIONSHIPS): add relationships between the entities that did not exist yet in the original data (e.g. Use Case Mapping Scholarly Debate)

-Jodi



> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Nov/0003.html
> 
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 09:27:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 November 2010 09:27:43 GMT