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

[UC side deliverable] Status

From: Daniel Vila <dvila@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:58:53 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimCWJ7pX0gXh=jhmkEaSotnmi+Aqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org

I write this email as a reminder of the current status of the report, just
to summarize my previous email ("Use Case Report -- first pass at a

There are just some small things left:

1) Short paragraphs describing extracted UC for Social and new uses


Jodi agreed to send them to me soon, I could also do it myself if authors
are too busy with other sections.

2) Short descriptions for extracted UC Collections cluster:


I have sent yesterday email to Gordon and Karen, to get their agreement on
the generalized UC, but if i do not get an answer I will write the short
summaries tomorrow.

3) Around 10 short summaries of
this won't be very time taking. I will try to finish it up tomorrow as I
have some time to work on the report.

Aslo, there is still an open question from Jodi regarding the naming
of *Extracted
Use cases* section:

"- Consider renaming "Extracted Use Cases" -- this seems, to me, like
a *summary
of the clusters*

I would like to get the opinion from the members of the list on this. I am
not sure what was the rationale behind this name but it is consistent
accross every cluster page. Do the people like this label or have any other
idea regarding naming?"

Any opinions on this? I think that something stating that they are
generalized scenarios or high-level uses would be a good label.

Finally, I would appreciate any contribution, feedback or opinion on the
report as they would help me to improve it and finish it with better
results. Thank you very much once again.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Vila <dvila@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Date: 2011/6/21
Subject: Re: Use Case Report -- first pass at a review
To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>

Hi Jodi & all,

First of all, thanks for your initial review it has been really helpful to
improve the document!

2011/6/20 Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>

> Hi Daniel & all,
> This is the first pass at a review of the Use Case Report
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport
> I have made some wording and phrasing changes; see the diff for more
> explanation:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=UseCaseReport&diff=5101&oldid=5042
> 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!
> -Jodi
> 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 have removed the capitalization and I think the text is very useful in
order to provide some background and motivation for the document.

> 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.

I have followed your recommendations and removed the paragraph.
Additionally, I have added some explanation sentences about external
linking, that might get changed in the final version of the deliverable.

> ==
> 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.

Maybe Gordon can respond to this request, I will send him an email just in
case he does not read this email. For now I will keep it as it is now.

> 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.

I have summarized them and given them a similar style to the other clusters
(e.g Archives)

> ====
> 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]?

I have removed the four general applications and kept the 3 more abstract
categories of use. I have reorganized the content of this section and tried
to  follow the same approach and style as for the other clusters, but it
might still need some rewriting for clarity's and consistency's sake, let me
know what you think.

> ====
> 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.

I have kept it as is and based the other cluster sections on its concise

> ====
> 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.

Done, there were "legacy" paragraphs coming from cluster's wiki page.

> ====
> 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.

Good point! Done

> ====
> Section 4.7 Collections
> "No defined in cluster page" -- does this require further action from
> Gordon and Karen?

I have for now "extracted" 3 generalized use cases, I will ask Gordon and
Karen before writing a short overview for each one.

> ====
> Section 4.8 Social and new uses
> (waiting for further action from me & Uldis)

Thank you for your response. I will add them as soon as you send them to me.

> ====
> Overall:
> -consider capitalization (e.g. Web or web, semantic web or Semantic Web,
> ...)

I have kept Web only when referring to the Web or the Semantic Web, and
changed to lower-case all the rest (e.g. web resources..)

> - consider adding a sentence describing the overall scenario (e.g.
> "Bibliographic data is data about library materials, including books, audio
> materials, ...")

Do you mean adding a sentence for each cluster? for example here for BIB

> - author names should be given in full. Who wrote archives, digital
> objects, authority data, vocalign?

I am not sure that author names will be in this form in the final version. I
would like to get the opinion from the chairs regarding this decision.

Does anyone know who wrote the Digital Objects cluster wiki page?

> - You should be listed as overall author of this deliverable.


- Consider using sentence case for section headings. In any case, be
> consistent.

Could you please further explain this point? I am not sure I have understood
it correctly.

> - Consider renaming "Extracted Use Cases" -- this seems, to me, like a
> summary of the clusters

I would like to get the opinion from the members of the list on this. I am
not sure what was the rationale behind this name but it is consistent
accross every cluster page. Do the people like this label or have any other
idea regarding naming?

- One disadvantage of the current structure (which I like overall) is that
> the clusters have to be mentioned in two separate places.

My opinion is that clustering helps to organize the two big sections
("Extracted or generalized use cases"  and "individual short summaries") and
gives the reader a more structured way to go through the document. Do you
have another option in mind?

Finally, there are still some short summaries left that will try to complete
before thursday's teleconf but I believe that the document can start to get

Thank you very much for your opinions,


Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 14:59:25 UTC

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