Re: Use Cases

Michael,

This is what we were trying to explain in [1]. So maybe this isn't suppose
to be an Application Requirement. I think it would go nicely as in intro to
the use cases. But that means that we should be consist with the use cases
and present use cases that align with this.

Adding a use case with Good Relations is great! It would also add to the
role of an ontology (in this case we are mapping to a domain ontology). I
still think that we need to address the issue of the role of the ontology
(see my previous email)

Cheers


[1]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements#R2ML_Application_Use_Case_Requirements
Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Michael Hausenblas <
michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:

>
> Juan,
>
> Thanks and agree - will take this input as an intro for sec 2. [1].
>
> BTW, I might extend the use cases with an example re GoodRelations
> (assuming
> a vendor who has products and wants to offer some 'price compare' or the
> like), which would strengthen 3. and 4.
>
> Cheers,
>      Michael
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#uc
>
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>
>
>
> > From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:24:36 -0500
> > To: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> > Subject: Use Cases
> > Resent-From: RDB2RDF WG <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> > Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:25:12 +0000
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > The general (or maybe only) use case is that we want to integrate our RDB
> > data with other RDF. I think we all agree on that and given the
> conversation
> > on Tuesday, this was a major consensus. However, behind that general use
> > case, there are sub use cases which will explain why we want to integrate
> > our RDB with RDF. These sub use cases include the following:
> >
> >    - Source: RDB (obviously)
> >    - Destination: a data source in RDF.
> >       - RDF that comes from structured source (RDB, XLS, CSV, etc)
> >       - Existing RDF that is on the Web
> >       - RDF that comes from unstructured sources (HTML, PDF, etc)
> >
> > Why do I make a distinction for the destination? Because I think that in
> > order to tell a nice use case story, we need to care where the RDF comes
> > from. And these are the scenarios (stories or use cases):
> >
> >    1. I want to integrate my RDB with another structured source (RDB,
> XLS,
> >    CSV, etc), so I'll convert my RDB to RDF and assume my other
> structured
> >    source can also be in RDF.
> >    2. I want to integrate my RDB with existing RDF on the web (linked
> data),
> >    so I'll convert my RDB to RDF and then I'm able to link and integrate
> >    3. I want to integrate my RDB with unstructured data (HTML, PDF, etc),
> so
> >    I'll convert my RDB to RDF and assume my other unstructured source can
> also
> >    be in RDF.
> >    4. I'm not interested in integrating my RDB with other sources
> >    (structured, rdf, unstructured). However, I do want to expose my RDB
> as RDF
> >    because I want semantic web search engines that crawl RDF data to
> index me
> >    and I want to become a Linked Data hub and let other people link to
> me.
> >
> > Essentially points 1-3 are about integrating RDB with RDF. Point 4 is
> about
> > just exposing it.
> >
> > This is what Dan and I were trying to explain in [1]. Is this too
> > controversial? If so, why? If not, then what I propose and would like to
> do
> > is have a use case that can tell a story for each of the 4 points. This
> > could give us full coverage. Going over the Use Cases in [2], I see the
> > following
> >
> >    - Integrating enterprise relational database for tax control clearly
> >    demonstrates point 1.
> >    - The RNA use case demonstrates point 2
> >    - The wordpress use case shows point 4 and we could create another use
> >    case from it in order to show point 3.
> >
> > I'm not sure where the other use cases would fit.
> >
> > So yes... the general use case is integrating RDB with RDF. But there are
> > subcases in that general use case and we need to present usecases where
> > readers feel that they fit in specifically... not just a general RDB2RDF.
> >
> > What do y'all think?
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements#R2ML_Applica
> > tion_Use_Case_Requirements
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/use-cases/#uc
> >
> >
> > Juan Sequeda
> > +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> > www.juansequeda.com
>
>