Re: Organizing Use Cases for F2F


What i see as the meta-issue here is that a lot of Use Cases relate to
having richer metadata about data sets, which allow the data to be
potentially understood, (discovered, evaluated and exploited)  in different
contexts - spatio-temporal, provenance, access services, etc.

In all these cases we usually need:
-   simple summary dataproperty set that is consistent with the
world - (which may be able to take DCAT on board - but certainly simple
- an identifiable extension point (an objectproperty  to attach details)
- a way of declaring the type the extension details
- a way of defining profiles of DCAT which constrain the types of details

so I'm guesing the objectproperty is going to be a link object, with the
resource, link type, label and probably a profile identifier that defines
the profile of the descriptive metadata resource ( profiles will be nested,
rather than massively complex monolithic descriptions - and the profile
nesting graph itself will be useful semantics about the compatibility of
the dataset.)

if we agree on a mechanism, then it will be simple to delegate each issue
to subgroups, by just asking for them to nominate at least one canonical
descriptive model and the entailment rules to derive the simple datatype
properties. The actual model doesnt need to go into DCAT core, keeping it

If we cant find a suitable model, then that feature is either out of scope,
or we define just simple dataproperties. Again I'd focus on
equivalences, and where DCAT adds specific extra value.

In the F2F you could have a first session to triage the UC against this and
other patterns, and as you go perhaps prioritise the extension pattern

I'd leave the profile negotiation discussion until after you have developed
a common view of profiles and how they will be needed to cope with this
rich set of extension options. (I'm sure profiles will need
abstraction/specialisation hierarchies, and multiple profiles will apply to
the same DCAT resource - so if you hit this issue prematurely you'll
probably solve half the problem)

Rob Atkinson

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 at 05:13 Karen Coyle <> wrote:

> In preparing for the face-to-face, Caroline and I would like to ask the
> group, especially the UCR editors, to suggest what they see as the
> logical groupings for our discussion sessions. It would be ideal for us
> to have this by the end of the working day (European time) on Tuesday.
> We have eight 90-minute slots that we can make use of. If we assume that
> at least part of the first slot will be introductions and establishing
> an overall working hypothesis, then we have 7 slots in which to discuss
> actual use cases. We may also wish to reserve 30 minutes at the end of
> the second day to prepare a list of missing use cases and immediate
> tasks relating to this deliverable.
> Remember that the primary goal of the F2F meeting is to provide the UCR
> editors with the information and decisions that they need to create a
> First Public Working Draft of the Use Cases and Requirements. A FPWD is
> a "heart-beat" document that is not expected to be final but that gives
> the W3C management and community an indication of the direction of the
> group, as well as proof that it is indeed getting its work done. We will
> expect the UCR to be issued in additional versions as the work
> progresses. Our goal for the FPWD is to meet the August 9 W3C deadline
> for publishing documents, which means that the group needs to approve
> the document before that.
> Also, it would be good to have by the end of the Oxford meeting an idea
> of how the DCAT group will proceed once the UCR FPWD is in place. We
> should also determine if the work so far informs the Profile and Content
> Negotiation groups, or if we have more to do in gathering use cases in
> those areas.
> --
> Karen Coyle
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>

Received on Thursday, 6 July 2017 20:10:30 UTC