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

Re: flagship use cases proposal

From: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:09:52 +0100
Message-Id: <809FA4DE-F75D-47AD-B0ED-71E6C9C6DE49@gmail.com>
To: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Yolanda Gil <gil@ISI.EDU>, "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
It looks like a good idea. I think it's nice to have a science use  
case as well. I would suggest an HCLS group linked data use case since  
there are good connections to our group and lots of interest in  
provenance in that community.



On Feb 18, 2010, at 22:25, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think the proposed flagship use cases are good, but I agree that  
> it may good to replace 2
> by a linked data use case.
> There is also another community that is keen on provenance, it is  
> the scientific workflow community.
> May be should we combine this with linked data, where the scientific  
> workflow produces data
> published as linked data?
> My 2p to the debate,
> Luc
> On 18/02/2010 20:26, Yolanda Gil wrote:
>> 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?
>> Yolanda
>> 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 Friday, 19 February 2010 08:10:05 UTC

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