RE: [MMSEM-UC] Review of Tagging Use Case

Raphaël,

Thanks for the hints (even now - will improve further reviews for sure).

Still, one problem remains, and it is not clear to me how we should handle this
in general - the tagging UC just happened to be the first being reviewed:

In my understanding, first it should be checked how relevant a UC is to our XG
(this is why I suggested to have the relevance-stuff in the very first position).
If a UC is relevant, we can further go into details about how it is written, what is missing,
consistency, and so forth.

Now, what is your opinion 
	1) in the general case 
	2) w.r.t. the Tagging UC?

Cheers,	
	Michael

BTW1: I was really kind of afraid being _too_ straightforward ... 

BTW2: I'm sure you'll do your best to be rigorous but fair with other UCs ;)

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Raphaël Troncy [mailto:Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl] 
>Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:55 PM
>To: Hausenblas, Michael; Stamatia Dasiopoulou
>Cc: MMSem-XG Public List
>Subject: Re: [MMSEM-UC] Review of Tagging Use Case
>
>Dear Michael and Stamatia,
>
>> Referring to AP [1], I now made my comments available at [2].
>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-mmsem-minutes.html#action10
>> [2] 
>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/mmsem/wiki/Tagging_Use_Case_Review
>
>Thanks for having proposed a template for commenting the use 
>cases and for having
>completed your APs and sorry for not having reacted before.
>I have found your comments completely relevant for this 
>particular use case and I share
>them. However, I will object that the review remains at a too 
>high level for being fully
>useful to the authors. More generally, do not hesitate to 
>propose new wording of
>paragraphs or sections that sounds for you obscure, or propose 
>new research directions,
>etc ...
>Remember that this is not a review of a scientific paper, do 
>not be "politically correct"
>but on the contrary, be tough and constructive in your 
>comments ... We will be with your
>use case :-)
>
>I should have pointed that before, but some good examples of 
>tough review are available
>for the "Image Annotation on the Semantic Web" document at 
>[3,4,5,6,7] and to some extent
>[8 .. 14].
>
>Best regards.
>
>    Raphaël
>
>[3] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0020.html
>[4] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0023.html
>[5] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0088.html
>[6] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0089.html
>[7] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0093.html
>
>[8] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Apr/0032.html
>[9] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Apr/0033.html
>[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Apr/
0034.html
>[11] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Apr/0037.html
>[12] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Apr/0035.html
>[13] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Apr/0036.html
>[14] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Apr/0038.html
>
>--
>Raphaël Troncy
>CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
>Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
>Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
>Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
>Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 11:22:51 UTC