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

AW: Use Case template

From: Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:47:42 +0200
Message-ID: <6DA97EFF2763174B8BDC409CA19729840BF082C5@dbf-ex.AD.DDB.DE>
To: "Emmanuelle Bermes" <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
To be honest, I'm still septic. An use case author who is not a 100% aware about the actor's goal tends to write a case study and NOT a use case. And it shouldn't be our job to rework these case studies into use cases...

I know the following idea comes up late (probably too late) but best solution could be a separation of use cases and case studies for the application of LLD.

Cheers, alex

 

 

Von: manue.fig@gmail.com [mailto:manue.fig@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Emmanuelle Bermes
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 09:30
An: Antoine Isaac
Cc: Haffner, Alexander; public-xg-lld@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Use Case template

 

 

	
	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 07:48:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 September 2010 07:48:20 GMT