RE: UC&R draft: 1.31

From the May 4 telecon agenda:

> 3. Use cases draft status
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases
>   $Revision: 1.26 $ or better
> 
> ACTION: AndyS, EricP to review kendallC draft by 4 May telcon

I have read through v1.32 (I had already read v1.25 and sent Kendall minor
wording changes).  I have few comments on the document and think it is in
very good shape.

Some comments:

= UC/Requirements relationahip =

DanC contributed:
[[[ 
A list of technical requirements has been extracted from the use cases, a
list that describes the critical features a standard RDF query language and
data access protocol should possess.
]]]
to the introduction.  We generated requirements (4.1-4.10) by a different
route but I think they are reasonably justified given the use cases.  I
wouldn't expect a direct match between the UCs and requirments, just a
reasonable connection.  The matching will always be arguable; I think we
should also be clear that the requriments do not form an exhaustive set of
features.

= Use case intro =

[[[ http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases#uc
3. Use cases

Each use case describes a concrete application of future technology
recommendation, setting a user-oriented context in which the query language
or protocol or both are used to solve a real problem.
]]]

We were going to have text more like the OWL requirments doc: 

[[[ http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webont-req-20040210/
one should not assume that OWL will directly support every aspect of the use
cases.
]]]

that made it clear we are not completely solving the use cases but providing
technology for them.

= Requirements =

One area we have had a lot of discussion on is the "tell me about" query -
where the result form is not determined by the query itself.  This is
covered in UC 3.2 (Motorcycle parts) I think (it is arguable).

Explicitly including this, or explicitly rejecting it, as a requirement
would make thing clearer to the wider community.  We may not have time
before publication.

= Typos =
I wasn't looking specifically for these but I noticed:
3.2-para-2: s/receive/receive/
3.3-para-3: s/contain/contains/
3.5-para-2: s/^But his/His/
3.8-para-1: Elsewhere uses em rules (em dashes) so s/ -- /—/
4.10 title: s/\.// 

= Feedback =

A link to where feedback should go.  My preference is that we have a
separate comments mailing list to gather the feedback.  Having this running
before we publish would be good.

	Andy


-------- Original Message --------
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <>
> Date: 3 May 2004 22:06
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I've checked in version 1.31 of the UC&R document. It's my best effort
> to address the issues raised before, during, and since our F2F
> meeting. I haven't yet finished working through all of the issues on
> my TODO list, but I got most of the big ones. (And for some reason
> aspell, my Unixy spell checker, doesn't like the document so I've been
> unable to spell check it...Sorry.)
> 
> I'm suggesting the following publication schedule as way to start
> discussing the fulfillment of our obligation to publish by the end of
> May: 
> 
> 17 May -- I'll freeze the document
> 18 May -- discussion of document in telcon
> 25 May -- final discussion; call the question
> 26 to 29 May -- if approved, I'll finalize the doc here 30 May --
> publish 
> 
> (By "freeze", I mean I'll be very unlikely to add new material or
> significantly reorganize the document on *my own initiative* after this
> point.) 
> 
> Frankly, I think we now have enough use cases: there are two existing
> ones I need to polish, modulo new concerns or issues raised by others
> 
> Thus, unless I hear from people explicitly, I'm not likely to add more
> UCs to the document on my own steam.
> 
> Best,
> Kendall

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 05:36:07 UTC