Re: Use Case document

Ivan, Jeremy and all,

I am late as usual providing feedback.  I finally was able to spend some
time today pulling together a prototype requirements to specifications
comparison table.
https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/wiki/Mapping_Requirements_to_Specifications

1) The requirements were pulled from the latest Use Case document on
github. (http://w3c.github.io/csvw/use-cases-and-requirements/ )
2) Sections from the various CSVW specification documents were correlated
to the .UCR:
   http://w3c.github.io/csvw/metadata/
   http://w3c.github.io/csvw/syntax/
   http://w3c.github.io/csvw/csv2json/
   http://w3c.github.iio/csvw/csv2rdf/
3) If a specification has not been developed  or I could not find a
specification then I added "Not located" under the References column. .

My observations are the following:  A table like this might be useful
either as an appendix or perhaps they could be linked directly in the
requirements section in a similar way that we currently provide
specifications.  I personally prefer the latter approach (just
incorporating references in the current list of use case requirements.

I realize that at the time we wrote the UCR document many of the
specifications were evolving.  Now that the specifications seem to be
solidifying in terms of the content, creating links directly to the
specification subsection would be far more useful to the end user than a
reference to an entire specification.

I would be happy to help incorporate changes into the UCR if this seems
useful to others.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Eric S


On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Tandy, Jeremy <
jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:

> Hmm... I missed that point :-)
>
> Either way, I have no capacity to progress amendments to the UCR doc right
> now.
>
> Jeremy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: 18 November 2014 12:37
> To: Tandy, Jeremy
> Cc: Eric Stephan; W3C CSV on the Web Working Group
> Subject: Re: Use Case document
>
> Hm. We may be talking about different things.
>
> What you are talking about is indeed useful and a good idea. But what I
> referred to was something different...
>
> We do have section 3 in the document already, listing the requirements,
> and linking them to the use cases. I *believe* Eric Prud'hommeaux's comment
> at TPAC was whether there is any further documentation on how the group
> acted upon the various requirements in terms of the specifications produced.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
>
> > On 18 Nov 2014, at 11:02 , Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi - belated response :-)
> >
> > My recollection from the F2F is that we wanted to add a section to the
> UCR doc that summarised the use cases; e.g. in order to help users with new
> use cases determine if their use case was already covered.
> >
> > In my mind, I thought that a table providing 'one-liner' (or at least
> very concise) summary and a cross reference to the related requirements*
> for each use case would be sufficient.
> >
> > I can't progress this at the moment due to commitments on the mapping
> docs ...
> >
> > Eric - could you make a 'prototype' of this (or whatever you think is
> most appropriate) for, say, the first four or five use cases? Then we can
> assess the utility & determine if we want to complete the set & add it to
> the UCR doc. Please advise if you are already maxed-out with work; if so
> we'll just leave this as pending (although we ought to add an issue
> relating to this in the github so we don't forget!).
> >
> > Many thanks, Jeremy
> >
> > * we may want to use the requirements groups (from the section headings
> in the UCR document) to provide an even more high-level overview - but I am
> not sure if these section headings are adequate.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> > Sent: 10 November 2014 07:56
> > To: Eric Stephan
> > Cc: Tandy, Jeremy; W3C CSV on the Web Working Group
> > Subject: Re: Use Case document
> >
> >
> >> On 08 Nov 2014, at 19:41 , Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ivan,
> >>
> >> The original question was posed by Eric P (RDF Data Shapes Working
> Group) the first morning, I'm not sure if he had seen the use case
> document.   It seemed to be related to the situation where an external
> reader who has a background in another domain could relate to use cases
> already identified in our document.
> >>
> >> In order to orient themselves, would they need to read the entire
> document?  Should they start with the requirements?  Or perhaps another
> approach that could be used such as a reference table summarizing the CSV
> usage in each scenario as a capabilities need.
> >
> > So, maybe, what we can do is something a bit less formal than what I
> wrote. Instead of making formal references, we can add a note to each
> requirements on whether this Working Group will 'answer' that requirement
> in what it produces (with some references to specs or overall design
> elements) or whether it decided that this would go beyond the charter or
> what the WG can achieve in this round and that it is postponed to a
> successor group if the community decides to set up one.
> >
> > How does that sound? I think it would probably be very useful for all of
> us, too.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >> I am not 100% sure what this would mean and how. Should we have a
> pointer from each requirements to issues and resolutions in the WG? I do
> not think we have such a systematic set of issues or resolutions... But
> maybe I do not understand what the idea was.
> >>
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 06 Nov 2014, at 18:32 , Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jeremy and all,
> >>>
> >>> As I recall from our F2F meeting [1]  we discussed the use case
> document was in a fairly complete form.  We did discuss on the morning (see
> below) of the first day the possibility of including a look up table to
> help orient users with new use cases in mind to see if there requirements
> had already been captured.  Is this something we want to pursue?
> >>>
> >>> Eric S
> >>>
> >>> References
> >>> [1]  http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-csvw-minutes.html
> >>>
> >>> ericp: A measure of success may be that someone can bring in a use
> case, look at the requirements and see if theirs are included already
> >>> phila: The use case document for CSVW is useful for DWBP. That group
> (laufer) will pull use cases from this group's document for that group's
> use case doc.
> >>> laufer: You are talking about a file with metadata for other CSV
> files, and I've seen that you've proposed a file extension. We will have
> other metadata files, but I'm not sure a particular extension would be
> useful. A general way to link metadata files to data files may be better.
> >>> jeniT: we'll be discussing that later today. But it contains 4
> mechanisms for finding metadata; appending a file suffix is one of the four.
> >>> ivan: Looking at the Use Cases document, to the editors: is the
> document done?
> >>> jtandy: I think we have a good collection of use cases. There may be
> others to include. D3: data driven documents — we may want to look at it.
> >>> ... As we reviewed use cases earlier this year, we saw that most
> requirements in them had already been covered. But the requirements do need
> more work. They are placeholders that allow us in the group to work on them.
> >>> ericstephan: I'm not sure if we've drawn out — if we found use cases
> that correlated well, we combined them. That was an internal, organic
> process.
> >>> ... It might be useful to show something like characteristics? Not a
> requirement.
> >>> jenit: can you give an example?
> >>> ericstephan: In science efforts, there may be an approach (imaging
> formats, for instance) used in an entirely different discipline.
> >>> ... Is it enough to put it in requirements, or is there another
> outreach mechanism that would help draw people in, so they can relate to a
> use case?
> >>> jtandy: As an example, we had to work out which use cases covered data
> transformation. Not a requirement, but something they have in common. Maybe
> a simple lookup table at the topic?
> >>> danbri: Do you have everything you need to do that?
> >>> jtandy: the ones we have are sufficiently articulated to do that. We
> should give them the chance to comment though.
> >>> danbri: and in terms of having their actual CSV files?
> >>> jtandy: Sometimes. Some are behind corporate firewalls. Obviously only
> those use cases that talk about transformation can have target XML, RDF,
> JSON. But examples of those help.
> >>> ericstephan: It's like saying, "Here's something that illustrates this
> use case, and here are some sister or related datasets from something
> similar."
> >>> ... So you could expand from datasets from the explicit use case.
> >>> jtandy: But given the limited resources of the group, we have to
> balance that idea along with meeting the other deliverables. Let's try to
> work that out this week.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Ivan Herman, W3C
> >> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> >> mobile: +31-641044153
> >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Ivan Herman, W3C
> > Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> > mobile: +31-641044153
> > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>