Use case & requirements document structure

Hi Veronique, Wonsuk, all,

I have started working on a proposal for the structure of the use case & 
requirements document. Looking at the material I am wondering if we can 
re-organize it:
- What is currently called "use cases" are mostly application scenarios.
- What is called "tasks" are what I would call use case.
- To be able to execute a task, you need to fulfil certain requirements.

An example: There is the "cultural heritage" application scenario. In 
that scenario, there is the use case of "accessing collections of 
metadata". For this use case we may have the requirement that the 
ontology allows for multiple description levels.

Another example: assuming a "developing web applications " application 
scenario, there is the use case to have read access in an API for meta 
data across different formats. For this use case, there is the 
requirement to have an API to allow for read access across formats.

I think for what is currently in the "recommendations across different 
media types" application scenario, we have a similar use case: read 
access meta data across different formats, to be able to create the 

If we follow this path, we probably do not need the "video application 
scenario", since it is too general, and it's enough to keep the tasks 
which are in that section, and call them "use case".

For the mobile application scenario, we have the use case of accessing 
location based information and the requirement to achieve 
interoperability between different ways to convey this information.

Background for this proposal is that the questions which I gathered from 
Rubin's "ontology feature" page and the mailing list
All seem to map into requirements, and these easily relate to what is 
currently called "tasks", but are probably rather "use cases".

If we agree on this proposal I can create a template for use case 
(currently "task"), requirements and application scenario description. 
Note that in this approach there is not necessarily a 1:1 relation 
between use cases and requirements.

I know that this proposal does not take Veroniques re-organization 
proposal at
into account. And probably it is difficult to agree on this soon and via 
mail, but let's try. For what it's worth, I have similar problems as 
Veronique to understand the notion of context, and I have more and more 
the impression it does not hurt to leave it out of the picture. Also, I 
think the large amount of material in the current draft are due to the 
fact that lots of descriptions are specific to aplication scenarios. For 
our work, we probably don't need these, but shorter descriptions of use 
cases (currently tasks) and requirements.


Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 07:45:26 UTC