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

Re: Use Case Report -- first pass at a review

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:46:26 +0100
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <89ED3E7B-F902-4B1A-BFE3-D4B153C62C91@deri.org>
To: Daniel Vila <dvila@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the very thorough responses! I've trimmed to reflect just a few responses below...

-Jodi

On 21 Jun 2011, at 20:44, Daniel Vila wrote:
> 
> 
> ====
> 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

I think that's a bit of a loss -- maybe somebody else could suggest a way to include both.

Here's the text I mean:
The four "general applications" for vocabulary alignment data (as elaborated in [2]) can serve as a foil for the extraction (with Voc1 and Voc2 as the vocabularies to be aligned):
Reindexing of collections: supporting the indexing of documents with Voc2 based on existing indexing with Voc1, or vice versa.
Concept-based search across vocabularies in heterogeneously indexed collections: supporting the retrieval of documents indexed with Voc1 for queries that use Voc2 concepts, or vice versa.
Navigation across vocabularies: supporting the exploration of concept spaces across vocabularies, giving (exploratory) access to collection items indexed with selected concepts.
Vocabulary merging: supporting the construction of a new vocabulary that encompasses both Voc1 and Voc2, or the integration of one vocabulary into the other (as an extension or satellite of the other vocabulary)


> 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.

It does look more consistent. :)

> ====
> 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.

Thanks, I haven't forgotten about this.
 
> - 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 cluster: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport#Bibliographic_data
>  
> - 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?

Authors: Mark van Assem, Asaf Bartov, Jodi Schneider -- added them there, sorry about that!

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

Sentence case means that you mainly capitalize the first word, rather than each important word. Here's some more specifics:
http://acawiki.org/AW:SC

> 
> 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?

I guess "Summary" would work for me. Maybe others have more creative ideas!

> 
> 
> - 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.

Yeah, I think that does make sense.

> Do you have another option in mind? 

No, it was just a throwaway comment. :)

> 
> 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 reviews.
> 
> Thank you very much for your opinions,
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Daniel
> 
Received on Monday, 27 June 2011 14:46:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 June 2011 14:46:57 GMT