W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > February 2010

Re: flagship use cases proposal

From: Yolanda Gil <gil@ISI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:26:44 -0800
Cc: "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4B87C3C6-06D2-4C16-BBFD-509EC0947803@isi.edu>
To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Hi Paul:

Your proposal is very reasonable, thanks as always for pushing the  
requirements document forward and doing this synthesis.

I wonder what others think, but one thing I'd suggest to keep in mind  
is who our main immediate consumers are going to be.  Right now my  
sense is that it is going to be the Linked Data community, and if I am  
right it is a pity that there is no use case centered around that  
topic.  If you want to keep the number to 3, I would say that if I had  
to take one of your proposed 3 out it would be #2 (public policy), as  
that area is kind of behind in the times for social reasons.  Just my  
2c though, what do others think?


On Feb 17, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi All,
> Sorry for being silent on the requirements document.
> I wanted to propose the  flagship use cases below for the  
> organization of the requirements and get your thoughts on them. If  
> we can agree on the general high-level use case then we can start  
> filling them out. I'm pretty sure that each flag ship can pretty  
> much include most of what's covered in the use cases I've listed  
> with them without too much addition.
> Thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Paul
> 1) Creating and advertising a blog post
> A user Bob creates a blog post that contains a quote from another  
> blog, a snippet from the New York Times, a couple of pictures (one  
> from Flickr and one from his hard drive). He advertises the post  
> using a tiny url using Twitter. The tweet is then modified and  
> retweeted by one of his followers Sarah, which is then  subsequently  
> quoted in dozens of other blogs around the web.
> Combination of
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Retweets
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Provenance_in_Blogosphere
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Creative_Commons
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Mapping_Digital_Rights
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Attribution_for_a_Versioned_Document
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Identifying_Attribution_And_Associations
> 2) Evidence for public policy
> I think we should expand the Use Case Scenario described in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Evidence_for_Public_Policy 
>  to consider the following other use cases:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Provenance_of_Decision_Making_Emergency_Response
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Provenance_for_IQ
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/ 
> Domain_Specific_Provenance_2
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Result_Differences
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Closure_of_Experimental_Metadata
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_private_data_use
> 3) Compliance with Business Contracts and Regulations
> I think expanding on the scenario described in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Fulfilling_Contractual_Obligations 
>  would be good. It could be made concrete with respect to the  
> scenario described in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Evidence_for_Engineering_Design
> It could be expanded to cover:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Hidden_Bug
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Crosswalk_Maintenance 
>  (recreating what happened in the process)
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Metadata_Merging
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Use_Case_Linked_Data_Timeliness
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 20:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:59 UTC