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

AW: AW: AW: Use Case template

From: Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:05:32 +0200
Message-ID: <6DA97EFF2763174B8BDC409CA19729840BF082CC@dbf-ex.AD.DDB.DE>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "Emmanuelle Bermes" <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Ok, so i believe in your strong believes :-) and we go for the one4all template...under the circumstances it sounds to me like a adequate decision!

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 13:24
> An: Haffner, Alexander
> Cc: Emmanuelle Bermes; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Use Case template
> 
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> There was no misunderstanding, or maybe not exactly as you picture it :-) You
> created a template based on one specific view, and that's very valuable. But the
> fact is that it seems also good at capturing a wider range of cases. That's I think
> (at least for me) the reason for which no-one suggested an alternative or a
> complement template.
> 
> In fact along all these efforts I had in mind the example of SWEO [1] which has
> different categories but a same submission form.
> I agree with you that in theory the descriptions for use case and case studies
> would look more different than at [1]. But we are not asking contributors to spend
> hours creating a full use case document or a case study: it should be as easy as
> possible for them. At a high-level we can make use of the same sections, I strongly
> believe.
> 
> Further, in terms of timing it would be quite counter-productive to devote more
> time to a new template. It would confuse contributors, and I'm not expecting that
> the number of submissions would be so high--the gain of curation time would be
> not very significant. Especially since I'm convinced we need to spend significant
> time to analyze these cases anyway, if we want to make most of them to feed our
> other efforts!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
> 
> 
> > Hi Antoine,
> > you are completely right we designed a template for use cases not for case
> studies - apparently this was a misunderstanding...
> > Now the question is, can one template really serve use cases and case studies
> and furthermore does this approach alleviate work or just confuse creators?
> > I suppose a second template only for case studies could support authors in a
> more efficient way and as well make it more easy to us derivate global LLD
> requirements from the UCs and the CSs. We also have to ask what is more time
> intensive, adapting the current template to match UCs and CSs needs or
> elaborating a second template only for CSs? We should definitely discuss this.
> > Cheers, Alexander
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 10:22
> >> An: Haffner, Alexander
> >> Cc: Emmanuelle Bermes; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> >> Betreff: Re: AW: Use Case template
> >>
> >> Hi Alexander,
> >>
> >> Well, I think that in many people's mind this has been a gathering of use cases
> >> and case studies for quite a while--and in fact this is what the charter say.
> Maybe
> >> the confusion comes from the fact that though you designed it with use cases
> in
> >> mind, the template could apply pretty much to both situations. And I don't think
> >> that's necessarily bad. We're not asking for pages of description for use cases
> or
> >> case studies, a very similar grain could apply. I guess that's actually why no
> one
> >> has objected so far--if you had asked for drawing a use case diagram being a
> >> mandatory section, we would have spotted more issues.
> >>
> >> Would it alleviate everyone's worries to emphasize once more on the fact that
> we
> >> use one template, but it serves both ends, and still label our call as a "call for
> use
> >> cases and case studies"?
> >>
> >> Antoine
> >>
> >> [1] with the notable exception of the goal section
> >> (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Template#Goal) which
> >> could have different content. But even then the current explanation in the
> template
> >> actually is not precise enough to rule out case studies, as was demonstrated
> by
> >> Karen's "case". And I believe this is ok!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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_Libra
> >> ry_Data&oldid=565
> >>>
> >>
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Use_Case_Open_Libr
> >> ary_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>
> >>>
> >>>      <mailto: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>
> >>>      <mailto:a.haffner@d-nb.de<mailto:a.haffner@d-nb.de>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>       >  http://www.d-nb.de
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      --
> >>>      =====
> >>>      Emmanuelle Bermčs - http://www.bnf.fr
> >>>      Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> =====
> >>> Emmanuelle Bermčs - http://www.bnf.fr
> >>> Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
> >>>
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 13:06:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 September 2010 13:06:08 GMT