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

Re: Use Case template

From: Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:29:49 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimkopSLOtU8hgNiFqrz726WW0A5GPFaLd5fwMc0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "Haffner, Alexander" <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
>
> So, to sum up: we try to do it in the group in a later curation/analysis
> step, we do not request everyone else outside  to do it.
> Do you think we could get consensus on that?
>

+1 : the use cases will need curation afterwards anyway.

Emmanuelle


>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Use_Case_Open_Library_Data&oldid=565
> [2] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/about.html
> [3] In fact given the time it took us to realize, I imagine that a template
> that tries to ensure appropriate actor-level goal may become very long and
> contribute to make the use case filling task (even more) tedious.
>
>
>  Thank you Alex for clarifying the context.
>>
>> I'd like to bring this up again before our next call, because we need to
>> reach an agreement on the use case template now.
>> The discussion page at [1] is currently empty. So we will probably need
>> to discuss the template again on next call.
>> Maybe we can have a discussion on each part of the template and decide
>> if we keep it / drop it / edit it.
>>
>> Following the discussions we already had, we could start with the
>> following :
>>
>> Name -> no problem,  keep
>>
>> Owner -> no problem,  keep
>>
>> Background and Current Practice -> no problem,  keep
>>
>> Goal -> to be edited to make it clear that it's meant to be the goal of
>> the actor in the scenario, not the goal of the use case
>>
>> Use Case Scenario -> no problem,  keep
>>
>> Target Audience  -> added by Joachim. The group finds it useful but it
>> should be optional. To be edited : we need to add guidelines on how to
>> fill it.
>>
>> Application of linked data for the given use case -> not discussed yet.
>> Is that clear to everyone ?
>>
>> Existing Work -> to be edited to add prototypes
>>
>> Related Vocabularies  -> no problem,  keep
>>
>> Problems and Limitations -> not discussed yet. Is that clear to everyone ?
>>
>> Related Use Cases and Unanticipated Uses (optional) -> not discussed
>> yet. Is that clear to everyone ?
>>
>> Library Linked Data Dimensions / Topics -> confusing. Drop it, or keep
>> it only for curation ?
>>
>> References -> no problem,  keep
>>
>> Prototypes and Applications  -> added by Joachim. Drop it: content to be
>> put under "existing work".
>>
>> Comments welcome on this proposal. I'm copying my mail in the discussion
>> page of the template, so you're welcome to make your comments there.
>> Emmanuelle
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Use_Case_Template
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de
>> <mailto:A.Haffner@d-nb.de>> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Hi everyone,
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > In addition to our telco from yesterday some comments to make sure
>> the templates are applicable for upcoming UCs.
>>  >
>>  > First, I’d like to give some extra information regarding our template
>> elaboration. Kai and I are both computer scientists so we are driven by
>> experience of UC modeling (UML etc.) in the context of software
>> development. As a consequence our chosen approach is similar to the one
>> used in software engineering. It’s a user-centered approach. That means
>> we try to identify user needs by analyzing the interaction of an actor
>> (librarian, end user as data consumer, data provider – every imaginable
>> user!) with a particular system (an already existing one or just an idea
>> of a system).
>>  >
>>  > The conclusion of system requirements (in our case requirements for
>> linked data in libraries) is in software engineering processes the next
>> step and usually by use cases in this form pretty easy. However, this
>> doesn’t mean this approach is best for LLD-XG needs.
>>  > Nevertheless, we would first like to make sure that you got our
>> thinking and then we can discuss the need to modify the UC gathering
>> process to suit LLD XG requirements.
>>  >
>>  > From that on we should have a closer look to the single parts of the
>> UC template and the descriptions therefore. The discussion yesterday
>> showed the ambiguity of the goal-section. Karen stated the major goal,
>> but actually we intended to highlight (1) the actor’s goal in this
>> particular UC and (2) how linked data can support this specific actor’s
>> goal. This is also pointed out by the comments of Kai in the Open
>> Library UC [1].
>>  >
>>  > We have to make sure that the template is unambiguous regarding our
>> common understanding of it’s purpose and intended use and after this our
>> UC template should probably be ready to go…
>>  >
>>  > Cheers, Alexander
>>  >
>>  > [1]
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Open_Library_Data
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  > Alexander Haffner
>>  > Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
>>  > Informationstechnik
>>  > Adickesallee 1
>>  > D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
>>  > Telefon: +49-69-1525-1766
>>  > Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
>>  > mailto:a.haffner@d-nb.de <mailto:a.haffner@d-nb.de>
>>
>>  > http://www.d-nb.de
>>
>>
>> --
>> =====
>> Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
>> Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
>>
>
>


-- 
=====
Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 07:30:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 September 2010 07:30:26 GMT