Re: use cases and how to contribute -- Re: Semantic MyPage Use Case


Thanks for adding the case to the wiki. No need to wait.

Thanks also Kjetil and Robin for the discussion.

Regarding Kjetil's suggestion of copying one case verbatim to the  
Note. We only have a few of them and I see two issues coming:
1) The level of detail is very different. I already mentioned concern  
about this a while ago. For example, "Semantic My Page" [1] describes  
a real use case around an existing project: how to enrich the services  
of the Norwegian portal for citizens using SW technologies.
"Your Website is your API" [2] takes a generic approach.

2) "US Privacy" [3] is/will be again about a specific project and is  
very closely related to "My Page".

My personal opinion is that I would not prevent those specific ones of  
coming, to the contrary, I mentioned at the last Chairs call I'm about  
to start a new round of contacts to see if we can get more of this  
from people outside the group.

What I don't see is how to choose between [1] and [3] for the Note.  
What is more, I think we should avoid to do this. I would prefer to  
see cases like [2] making its way to the Note. In order to do so, we  
would need a two stage process. First, let them come and publish them  
in the wiki following the template, then put the similar ones together  
in a generic one. Here we would need commitment to do this, ideally  
from the TF coordinators or Note editors and is were we could consider  
the beans allocation mechanism. In fact, we already did some of this  
and we are not working yet on any of the topic areas that nobody  
decided to take on yet (see the blanks at [4]).

We should have this reflected in the updated Activity Plan Kevin is  
working on with deadlines for those stages.

Although when I present our work I get a lot of attention and  
interest, I don't get much commitment. We need to avoid this at all  
costs and concentrate in those issues people will commit time to  
solve, as Robin said.



ps: I'm sorry for responding so late, apparently I missed this one.

El 12/11/2008, a las 23:53, Owen Ambur escribió:
> While I would certainly be open to any sort of "poll" or voting  
> system the
> IG may wish to use to sort out its priorities, I believe all that  
> really
> matters is the contributions that each of us makes.  If anyone is  
> waiting to
> make a contribution until after such a vote, I encourage them to stop
> waiting and start contributing to the objectives of greatest  
> interest to
> them personally.  On the other hand, if I am wrong about the value  
> of taking
> a vote on "collective" priorities, the sooner we conduct it, the  
> better.
> (However, I do not see how such a vote might affect what I  
> personally am
> willing and able to contribute.)
> In the spirit of this message, I just contributed another use case,  
> for Data
> Sharing Policy Expression.  See
> which is
> now #6 at
> Use_Cases#Enable:_Using_the_web_as_a_pla
> tform_to_deliver_data_for_re-use
> If the IG decides to pursue that use case collectively (or merely to
> authorize me to do so individually, on behalf of the IG), candidates  
> for
> inclusion in an inventory of "model" data sharing policies include:
> a) The U.S. E-FOIA amendments, which require agencies to make  
> reasonable
> effort to share in whatever formats they are requested any record  
> requested
> by anyone that is likely to be of interest to three or more others  
> and is
> not covered by one of the eight FOIA exemptions.
> &
> b) GSA's Efficient and Effective Information Retrieval and
> Sharing (EEIRS) report, which says agencies should post their public  
> records
> on their Web sites and that they should structure those records, as
> appropriate.
> c) The U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the  
> discovery
> of electronically stored information (ESI).
> d) The U.S. Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Data Reference  
> Model (DRM)
> and particularly the draft XSD that was intended to implement it.  See
> &
> Use_Case_2_XSD_for_DRM#Use_Case:_XML_Sch
> ema_for_Data_Reference_Model
> No doubt, there are good "models" in other nations as well.  I look  
> forward
> to learning whether the IG wishes to pursue this use case and, if  
> so, who
> will be willing and able to contribute to it.
> Owen Ambur
> Co-Chair Emeritus, xmlCoP
> Co-Chair, AIIM StratML Committee
> Member, AIIM iECM Committee
> Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG
> Membership Director, FIRM Board
> Former Project Manager,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [ 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:13 AM
> To: Jose M. Alonso
> Cc: Kjetil Kjernsmo; eGov IG; Steinar Skagemo; Kjetil Helberg; John
> Sheridan; Kevin Novak
> Subject: Re: use cases and how to contribute -- Re: Semantic MyPage  
> Use Case
> On Nov 12, 2008, at 13:46 , Jose M. Alonso wrote:
>> El 12/11/2008, a las 10:29, Kjetil Kjernsmo escribió:
>>> This also implies that some distillation is needed, that Use Cases
> admitted to
>>> the note are issues where IG members find common ground, unless one
> member is
>>> deeply committed to something that other members also find  
>>> interesting
> but is
>>> not assigning resources to.
>> Do you have an opinion on how we should conduct this process? Would
>> you choose out of the ones in the wiki or would you try to identify
>> overlap and develop more generic ones based on those for the Note?
> One issue here is goodwill creep. Use cases and requirements work
> often sees people violently agreeing that this or that use case would
> be absolutely wonderful to address, but when time comes to actually do
> something about it no one is willing to commit the resources to do so.
> I'm not pointing fingers here, I myself am finding it difficult to
> find the time to participate in the IG, and couldn't even make it to
> the f2f even though I was on site. The idea is simply to avoid wasting
> too much time discussing things that will get dropped because no one
> will work on them.
> One potential way of addressing this, which will be familiar to some
> of you, is to distribute beans around. Each participant gets a certain
> number of beans (say five) that they can use to support use cases.
> They can give all their beans to one, or they can spread them out.
> Only use cases that get a certain proportion of the beans get to go
> into the Note. This can be kept simple, or made more complex (people
> get extra beans for putting in editing work, lose some for not
> attending meetings) and will never be absolutely perfect (which is
> where chairs can step in ex machina) but it has two advantages: 1) it
> encourages people to merge use cases that are similar since that
> increases their viability; and 2) it forces people to put their mouths
> where the beans are rather than gleefully supporting everything that
> sounds nice. The implementation isn't necessarily complex, a wiki or
> someone with a spreadsheet can suffice.
> I'm not entirely convinced that we're at a stage at which we
> absolutely need such a mechanism, but since we're looking at a
> distillation and filtering process I thought I'd point out this
> option. In general my experience is that anything that can help reduce
> use cases creep early helps a lot down the line.
> -- 
> Robin Berjon -
>    Feel like hiring me? Go to

Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 07:42:34 UTC