- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:12:43 -0600
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 09:03, Seaborne, Andy wrote: [...] > Patrick: > > I think it's useful if our use cases are expressed in terms of > > the anticipated DAWG recommendation, > > While I have sympathy with having use cases be framed in terms of the future > rec (i.e. diving into tehtechnical), I am also aware that, as a group, we do > not have a sense of what that recommendation is. But I agree with Patrick: a good way to get a sense of it is to tell each other stories about it and see if those stories line up. I think what he's suggesting echoes another one of the qualities of the ideal use case that I gave earlier: " The ideal use cases will -- clarify one or more requitements " My hasty use case description fell short of ideal on that count. > I like the qualities Dan > provided as they are outwardedly focused, not technology focused. Getting > engagement with the wider audience means talking about the value provided > and less about the "how". Yes, the outward focus is critical. But the "how" needs to be in there somewhere, eventually. > > So I see use cases serving as input to a refinement step. Let's not jump > too early and only make use cases a technical description. The need for a > technical feature needs to be backed with an illustrative use otherwise it > is a requirement with unclear value. > > If we find that many use cases are covered by one technical aspect, then > that's good. We will come out of the first phase with concise requirments > that cover a range application/user needs. > > Andy -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 10:12:39 UTC