Re: Updated version of UCR document online

Hi Deirde,

Thanks for the updates! I took a look in the current version of the UCR
document and I found the following inconsistencies between the BP document
and the UCR doc. I also propose some solutions to solve them.

1. In the BP document there are 03 challenges that are not listed in the
UCR doc: Data Versioning, Data Preservation and Feedback.

To solve this, I suggest to:
   - create a new challenge called "Data Versioning" and associate the
R-DataVersion requirement to this new challenge.
   - rename the challenge "Requirements for Persistence" to "Requirements
for Preservation".
   - create a new challenge called "Feedback" and associate the
R-UsageFeedback requirement to this new challenge.

2. Data Selection and Industry reuse were not considered in the BPD

   - During the last F2F, Data Selection was considered to be out of the
scope of the BP document. I suggest to remove the Challenge Data Selection
and to relocate the following requirements: R-DataIrreproducibility,
R-DataLifecyclePrivacy, R-DataLifecycleStage and R-DesignatedUserExpertise.

- Since SLA is a type of metadata (similar to Geographic Context), I
suggest to remove the challenge  "Industry Reuse" and include the
requirement R-SLAAvailable in the Metadata section.

3. I understand that requirements from Section 4.2 and 4.3 are requirements
for the vocabularies instead of vocabularies for BP. I think that this
should be more clear in the UC document. I suggest to:

- separate requirements for BP from requirements for Vocabularies in
Section 3.2.
- include a new requirement for Data Quality, like "Data Quality
information should be available". This requirement can be easily covered by
a BP.

Please, let me know if you have other comments or suggestions.

cheers,
Bernadette

2015-01-11 0:26 GMT-03:00 Lee, Deirdre <Deirdre.Lee@deri.org>:

>  Hi,
>
>
>
> The latest version of the UCR document is now online:
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/usecasesv1.html
>
>
>
> This includes all of the feedback from the use-case authors. As you can
> see, there are a lot more linkages now between use-cases and requirements.
> This helped reemphasise some existing requirements, identify those that are
> out of scope, merge a couple, and identify a couple of new requirements not
> yet included.
>
>
>
> I have also addressed the open issues.
>
>
>
> If you’re interested, I’ve also uploaded the UCR.ttl file
> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Use-Cases_Requirements_RDF
>
>
>
> Hopefully this will be useful for contributors to the BP document.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Deirdre Lee
>
> Research Associate
>
> eGovernment Domain (DEG)
>
> Insight-NUIG
>
> IDA BusinessPark, Lower Dangan,
>
> Galway, Ireland
>
>
>
> deirdre.lee@deri.org
> skype: deirdrelee
>
> twitter: @deirdrelee
>
> linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>



-- 
Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------