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

Use Case Report -- first pass at a review

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:02:47 +0100
Message-Id: <CFC82694-C2D0-4746-98B9-DD3E34B3AA34@deri.org>
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
To: Daniel Vila <dvila@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Hi Daniel & all,

This is the first pass at a review of the Use Case Report

I have made some wording and phrasing changes; see the diff for more explanation:
I have not yet carefully reviewed the individual Use Case summaries since those are still in progress.

Have you asked for what you need from Cluster authors? I see that some parts are still pending based on missing information from the Collections & Social and new uses clusters.

More detailed comments below. Please ping me as a reminder when this is ready for a second review!


Introduction, Sections 1-3
The use of capitalized phrases in this paragraph isn't very clear:

The use cases presented in this report demonstrate the need for Linked Data technologies in order to DESCRIBE library resources and their context, and SHARE these descriptions among institutions and with the broader public. The issue of description mainly involves the creation or representation of RELATIONSHIPS between resources, by MAPping similar entities, making existing relationships more explicit, and creating new relations, either using machine processing (inferences, alignments, etc.) or manually (tagging, cataloguing). Those relationships can be used to provide DISCOVERy, through BROWSE and SEARCH services, and to FEDERATE or AGGREGATE many sources. They are also involved in data MANAGEment issues.  Linked Data technologies are used to improve global interoperability of library data, by RE-USing metadata elements sets and value vocabularies, providing URIs for resources, and developing PUBLISHing services like APIs.

I don't think this paragraph is needed:
The process followed by the group was to first collect the different use cases and case studies and then review them and extract the main scenarios. However, this document presents the extracted use cases first (section 4) and then offers short summaries for each individual use case (section 5). The rationale behind this structure is to give the reader an overall view on the main topics and scenarios involved in the different use cases clusters, before presenting each single case in more detail.

However, I think it would be useful to include a sentence or two here saying that each cluster has a page (which is linked), and that authors for each cluster are listed. It may also be useful to add a layer of navigation, perhaps by numbering the clusters and using the list of 8 clusters as a sort of table of contents for the remainder of the report.

Section 4.1 Bibliographic data
Some of these may have a processor role which isn't mentioned, e.g. 
Integrated metadata search interfaces across several providers
The end-user searches metadata for all resources in a consortium using a single, integrated interface, and identifies all available copies of a resource, including the nearest to a specified location.

Are these three different scenarios, just under the same heading since they're related? If so, make that more clear.
Information aggregation
The end-user refines results of a search, and expands it to include related resources from external collections at web-scale. The processor identifies recently-published bibliographic resources for dissemination in a current awareness service. The end-user obtains access to an online full-text version of a resource via a link from the bibliographic record for the resource.
Section 4.2 Authority data

The case study-style examples are nice, but abbreviated versions might be as informative.

Section 4.3 Vocabulary alignment

It's a little confusing that there are two separate classifications here -- 4 "general applications" and 3 "categories of use". An introductory sentence explaining that would help.

"The four "general applications" for vocabulary alignment data (as elaborated in [2])" -- what is [2]?

Section 4.4 Archives and heterogeneous data

So far this is my favorite; the examples are specific and clearly described. There's not too much text about any one.

Section 4.5 Citations

These examples are also brief and clear.

These two paragraphs can be removed, right?
In this section, we list use cases in a very narrow sense that were extracted from the above mentioned scenarios or made up additionally. A use case in this narrow sense means a specific action that an end-user might want to perform that includes the citation data as we have defined it here.
The purpose of such use cases typically includes the extraction of requirements that then can be fulfilled by the underlying implementation. In turn these use cases also provide a rationale for each requirement and explain, why this requirement is needed. To illustrate this, we added a notion of some requirements in italics.

Section 4.6 Digital Objects

Are the 'Users' here equivalent to the 'End-users' of 4.1?

"should be" could be removed -- and replaced with actions. e.g. "Enable end-users to...". That would emphasize the action rather than the User.

Section 4.7 Collections

"No defined in cluster page" -- does this require further action from Gordon and Karen?

Section 4.8 Social and new uses

(waiting for further action from me & Uldis)


-consider capitalization (e.g. Web or web, semantic web or Semantic Web, ...)
- consider adding a sentence describing the overall scenario (e.g. "Bibliographic data is data about library materials, including books, audio materials, ...")
- author names should be given in full. Who wrote archives, digital objects, authority data, vocalign? 
- You should be listed as overall author of this deliverable.
- Consider using sentence case for section headings. In any case, be consistent.
- Consider renaming "Extracted Use Cases" -- this seems, to me, like a summary of the clusters
- One disadvantage of the current structure (which I like overall) is that the clusters have to be mentioned in two separate places.
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 17:03:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:57 UTC