Re: Have I got use cases for you

* Phil Archer <phil.archer@icra.org> [2004-11-08 21:09-0000]
> 
> As promised I've put a few use cases online. I'll try and think of some 
> others but these are the top of my list.
> 
> I've written one document that describes the use cases and gives some 
> detail of what is expected, then created actual test data for each one.
> 
> Please see http://www.icra.org/projects/quatro/techdiscussion/usecases/
> 
> There must be a reason why the RDF instance at 
> http://www.icra.org/projects/quatro/techdiscussion/usecases/exemplar/labels.rdf 
> doesn't validate but I can't see it...

Hi Phil,

I've had a quick play with the example, tweaking it to fit RDF/XML's 
so-called 'striped' syntax. Basically this means that XML elements and 
attributes altenatively stand for nodes and edges in the underlying
graph. I've also changed the case conventions to use capital letters for 
classes (ie. categories, resource types), and lowerCase notation for 
relationships/properties. I have marked up the application rule section
using RDF's list construct, ie the parseType="Collection" attribute. I
have not added any ordering around the application rule and match
construct, though I think we discussed doing so. 

Revised file, plus the graphic from the RDF validator, is at 
http://www.w3.org/2004/03/quatro/tests/week1/

Backgrounder on RDF 'striping' that I wrote a couple years back, might
be useful, is at http://www.w3.org/2001/10/stripes/

I've not had a chance to think thru details of 
http://www.icra.org/projects/quatro/techdiscussion/usecases/ yet, but 
I think the local override case will be the one that exercises us the
most. It's good to write up such use cases even if we end up not
satisfying them all, of course. A technical term floating around nearby
to this issue is "monotonic" (see W3C glossary, 
http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=monotonic ). We
could exchange descriptions of non-monotonic rules using RDF, but RDF's 
design itself is monotonic: it guarantees that we if we believe two
documents, then combining them shouldn't produce something we disagree
with. There are loopholes (eg. exchanging descriptions of descriptions) 
but in general I think there are things in favour of not having a
defaults mechanism.

cheers,

Dan

Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 21:51:10 UTC