Re: Have I got use cases for you

Thanks Dan,

I have updated/corrected the use cases and added graphs for both examples - 
although the one without any ApplicationRules is pretty straightforward.

Meanwhile, I'll do some reading up!

Phil.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
To: "Phil Archer" <phil.archer@icra.org>
Cc: "Quatro Public list" <public-quatro@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: 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 Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:50:07 UTC