Re: Comments on UC template

Hello

A quick note before the meeting

Regarding use cases, seems to me we could make a distinction between the
following axes

- Bringing library legacy to the world = making the heritage available to
the Semantic Web at large : vocabularies and data migration and publication
following linked data formats and best practices, specifics of the library
legacy in this respect etc

- Using linked data inside the library world = opening and augmenting
library systems with external content

- Applications re-using library data outside their original context =
end-user views, mashups etc

A distinction orthogonal to the existing / expected dichotomy

Bernard


2010/6/22 Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>

> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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 ;-)
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Emmanuelle
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCTemplate1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
>
>


-- 
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Engineering
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
----------------------------------------------------
Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
----------------------------------------------------