Re: Comments on UC template

Thanks for getting this conversation started, Emmanuelle--and thanks, Kai, for giving us something concrete to work with!

On 22 Jun 2010, at 21:57, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Some comments and questions regarding the Use Case Template [1].
> 
> First a very general comment : it is not really clear to me if we're
> looking for use cases scenarios (services that we imagine could be
> created), or use cases that provide a feedback on actual
> implentations, projects, etc. that are undertaken in libraries. In the
> charter, it looks like the latter was intended.

The main thing that stands out to me in the charter is 
"help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web"
For me, this means taking a larger systems view, to ensure interoperability beyond libraries. I'm very much in favor of soliciting use cases for library/cultural heritage data widely, and hope we'll get feedback from 'superpatrons' who want to use the data, as well as from other organizations and businesses who may integrate bibliographic details in their own environment.

Perhaps we're conflating multiple tasks? From what you say next, I start to think that two related efforts could be useful:

> What I understood from last telecon was that in the Provenance group,
> the use cases were more theoretical, and were consolidated in a few
> scenarios.
> In the SWEO use cases [2], it is rather about describing an existing
> project/implementation.
> In the end, I think both ways are interesting, but I would be in favor
> of a specific section in the template to express if the use-case was
> implemented, by whom, and what was the outcome  : was it successful,
> or not, and why.

As you mention, besides use cases, we could (separately) _inventory existing *uses*_. Identifying existing Linked Data projects and implementations in libraries, archives, museums, etc...
> 
> Small comment on the introduction of the template :
> "It should not be confused with specifying the technology itself: a
> use case may allow for many alternatives to achieving user needs."
> I wonder if really fits our goals : we want use cases that show how
> Linked data can help libraries achieve their tasks, not generic use
> cases for library tasks.

I think this could be clarified, but it helps to look, also, at the previous line: 

"A use case describes what a user can do with a system, by specifying a sequence of interactions between user and system leading to a desirable outcome."

That is,  a use case is not an implementation. I agree that Linked Data could be mentioned here for clarity! 

> Here again, I think our focus is different from Provenance XG. For
> them, Linked Data is the context, and provenance data is the goal. For
> us, library data is the context, and Linked Data is the goal. Quite
> the opposite ;-)

Nicely said!

> 
> Regarding dimensions : related to my previous comments, I think we
> need to define library dimensions rather than Linked data dimensions.
> for instance I would suggest dimensions such as :
> - library catalogues for users :
> -- bibliographic data
> -- thesauri, authorities
> -- collaborative data (reviews, comments, tags)
> - library data exchanges (between libraries, B2B)
> - management data
> -- user logs or usage data
> -- loan information
> -- administrative & preservation metadata
> -etc.
> These are just a few ideas as a starting point.

These make sense to me, and I think you've highlighted the important aspects from the library "business" perspective! We can give more thought, then, to external uses and data exchanges.  And determine whether cultural heritage gives us additional dimensions (i.e. is rights metadata worth its own category).
> 
> Cheers,
> Emmanuelle
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCTemplate1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
> 

-Jodi