W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: use case evolution - process question

From: Jonathan Dale <jdale@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:31:19 -0700
Message-ID: <07ef01c1792d$f2cf36c0$ce3ba485@Troy>
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

I hope to have some use cases from both the FIPA Ontology Technical
Committee and the European Union Agentcities.RTD project very soon; I am
arranging the information now.

The FIPA Ontology TC has a number of use cases and ontology requirements
outlined that we would like to 'give' to this WG as input. The EU
Agentcities.RTD project has to build an example prototype, an Evening
Organiser, which works from multiple different (on a dynamic and ad-hoc
basis) services, and hence, ontologies.

I hope to send this to the group via email when I have cleared it with the
respective groups.

Best wishes,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, 29 November 2001 4:58 pm
Subject: use case evolution - process question

> Hash: SHA1
> I have a procedural question related to use case development. Namely,
> that good use cases evolve over time involving several iterations,
> each iteration adding more detail. I don't see how we can be sure a
> web ontology language will be covering unless the use cases show
> sufficient detail. Does our schedule allow opportunity for use case
> evolution? Shouldn't use case development happen in parallel with
> language design - i.e. they both evolve together?
> I'm happy to continue developing and evolving the use cases I've
> presented already. I plan to add more. I'm less comfortable trying to
> develop and flesh out use cases for which I'm not a domain expert.
> As one of the "new to DAML" people Lynn Stein characterized, I stand
> to learn new insights from someone who is more familiar. It wasn't
> clear from the telecon if there will be use-case subteams formed. If
> there are, I propose each team have at least one DAML expert
> available to help fill terminology & conceptual gaps.(maybe this is
> obvious?)
> I anticipate we'll want to follow some guidelines for transforming
> use cases into abstract requirements for the language. Given the
> intention of WOWG is to leverage DAML+OIL, I would expect there is an
> existing body of knowledge regarding the abstract requirements that
> motivated DAML+OILs current state. In what form might these
> requirements be currently? Is there a requirements formulation task,
> in addition to use case analysis, that involves capturing these
> requirements?
> Regards,
> Ned
> Ned M. Smith
> Intel Architecture Labs          Phone: 503.264.2692
> 2111 N.E. 25th Ave               Fax: 503.264.6225
> Hillsoboro OR. 97124            mailto:ned.smith@intel.com
> Version: PGP 6.5.3
> iQA/AwUBPAbLoxdTablCCzU/EQKdNwCfZvdTkeYKybV35K1nqPWvo60JqZwAoLBw
> /s5eUf3hG+THMBybuPlGN3Pi
> =vul7
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 19:32:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:40 UTC