Use Cases doc review

I'm working through the UCR and make the following observations.

UC#1
I think the potential requirements should probably be removed since they 
point to solutions, not requirements. Yes, I presume we will highlight 
why dcterms:accrualPeriod etc. should be used but that's a solution to 
the requirement to release schedule metadata. I'm happy with the main 
text as is but it could be strengthened a little in the next version to 
give more substance to the requirement for an SLA.

UC#2
Am I right that the bus stop example was real? If we can find a link to 
point to as evidence, that would be good. In general, real world use 
cases carry more weight than abstract ones. I don't think we can aim for 
100% real worldliness in this doc in the way that the CSVW WG has done 
but where our use cases have real world substance this should be 
highlighted. Again, happy for that to be in the next version of the doc.

UC#3, #4
Knowing how long some of these use cases have been around, are those 
updates now available?

UC#5
We're planing a whole vocab to answer this one! I might have a linkable 
quote to back it up next week. At the LGD workshop in March the Ordnance 
Survey said "if you use our Linked Data please let us know, or we might 
switch it off."

UC#6
Could be a little clearer and should include hyperlinks to referenced work.

UC#8
Machine readable SLAs? That's a whole new working group/EU project right 
there! Not arguing we should take it out, just flagging this as a 
heavyweight requirement.

UC#10 (Carole Post)
No requirements from this. IMO we either need to derive some 
requirements or remove the UC.

Out of time, that's as far as I got. I'll do a general tidy up of 
grammar and spelling etc. as part of pubrules.

Phil.


-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 13:03:10 UTC