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

Re: flagship use cases proposal

From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:04:11 +0000
Cc: Yolanda Gil <gil@ISI.EDU>, "<public-xg-prov@w3.org>" <public-xg-prov@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D4C4E7A9-3695-447E-9A03-23AEA0DADB2F@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: Paul Groth <pgroth@gmail.com>
OK.  How about if I take a shot at this and others (such as Jim) can  
feel free to jump in or offer alternatives if I'm doing it wrong?

Jim, one thing I like a lot about the public policy example is that  
there are fairly clear guidelines already about what should happen in  
the classical (non-'e') setting, which grounds and constrains what a  
solution must do to be useful in the field.  Is there something  
analogous in the bioinformatics settings you're familiar with (or is  
this something whose absence we could highlight in the use case?)


On Feb 19, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Jim McCusker wrote:

> >From a personal interest, I would vote for bioinformatics. I have  
> been pushing adoption of a generalized provenance model for  
> interchange in NCI's caBIG, and the use case below is core to  
> research in that domain.
> Jim

On Feb 19, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Paul Groth wrote:

> Hi James,
> So it involves essentially trying to make a larger use case that  
> includes some aspects from other use cases so that it encompasses  
> some more user requirements. I think it would be good to focus on a  
> specific domain. We're trying to use this for explanation in the  
> requirements report.
> You don't need to volunteer if you don't have the bandwidth. I just  
> think it's best if the person who takes on the the use case uses it  
> in the domain they want.
> Thanks,
> Paul
> James Cheney wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
>>> Hi James and All,
>>> It seems that we have agreement on a use case e.g. a scientist  
>>> uses linked data, processes it with a scientific workflow + some  
>>> manual and qualitative analysis makes it available.
>>> The question seems which domain: eGovernment Public Policy or  
>>> bioinformatics. There are benefits to both.
>>> * eGovernment has the whole push with Data.gov.uk and open  
>>> government data, which has been really a hit with the community as  
>>> a whole. Non-scientists can also usually understand policy type  
>>> use cases.
>>> * for bioinformatics it would cement our ties with the HCLS  
>>> working group. I know there are strong demands for provenance and  
>>> several iniatives their trying to capture provenance type  
>>> information. Also workflows and linked data have fairly strong  
>>> user communities in the domain.
>>> I think the best way to solve this is who takes initiative :-)
>>> So is there anyone who would like to write up this use case (use  
>>> case #2)?
>> What is involved?  I suppose that by speaking up I've volunteered,  
>> but that's all right.
>> I'm somewhat familiar with both domains (there are several  
>> bioinformatics database curators in Edinburgh we've interacted  
>> with).  I can imagine that further in the future, the already  
>> blurry line between public policy studies and eHealth might be even  
>> blurrier.
>> Is there a reason not to do both?  either
>> - add an eHealth/bioinformatics use case focusing on linked data
>> - or describing the eGov & eHealth aspects as instances of a  
>> generic scenario ?  Or would that make it too unfocused?
>> --James

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 19:04:43 UTC

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