W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > April 2011

Draft Use Case Deliverable

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:54:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9DC231.1080908@few.vu.nl>
To: Daniel Vila <dvila@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
CC: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
(re-sending with a better subject)

Dear Daniel,

I think that's really going into the right direction, thanks!
Some comments before the call--I was noting them while reading your draft anyway, and I see many people won't be at the call today...

1. The graph, though simple, is a very useful thing.

2. It's good to see the extracted use cases together in one manageable document. It will help getting some more homogeneous descriptions.
By the way do not hesitate to ask cluster curators, if you think heavy edition is needed for these extracted use cases, which you can't do!

3. On the Agrovoc case, I'd have some comments on the words used. But it seems more appropriate to remark now that this small paragraph has the exact grain that would be required for case summaries, I think!

4. Generally, I's recommend to already put links to the individual cases and cluster pages. Whatever be their status in the end, they will remain on the wiki. and meanwhile that would help you and whomever from the group who'd like to help you.

5. I was wondering about the general structure. Wouldn't it be worth trying to start with the extracted use cases and then the contributed cases? (that's a real question, I'm not sure myself)

6. We should perhaps adapt the terminology. I remember Kai, Alexander and others arguing about the 45 "use cases" not being real use cases (some are more like case studies, and without real user scenarios). Perhaps we could use the more general "contributed cases" to refer to them.

Cheers,

Antoine


> Hi,
>
> I have just edited the UC Report wiki page [1]. I have had a very busy time the last few days and could not work on the report as much as I would have liked.
>
> What the wiki contains is basically the structure that could have the final UC report document. The table of contents looks huge but the document is organized that way in order to let me edit each single UC to add the summary without spending time searching for it.
>
> I have kept the original approach to separate the UCs into several clusters both for the short summaries and the extracted UC.
>
> As I said, I did not get the time to really start writing/editing the short summaries [2] but I will have some more free time within the next days and I will start adding them to the wiki.
>
> As for the extracted UC [3], I have just identified the section in every cluster and cut&pasted it to the wiki page so I can pull everything together and add styling to it. I would love to hear from your vision on how this section should be organized and if we will need to synthetize the information there.
>
> Feedback is much appreciated. Thanks for your collaboration.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daniel
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport#Use_Cases_overview>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport#Use_Cases_overview
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport#Extracted_Use_Cases
>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 13:53:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 April 2011 13:53:38 GMT