W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Use case: tiger map/census data: have it your way

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:11:44 +0200
Message-Id: <0F5B09BF-797D-11D8-A9CA-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: "ext Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>

On Mar 18, 2004, at 17:03, ext 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 that's *why* we express our use cases in terms of an anticipated
DAWG rec, making clear in the use case what bits were faciliated by
the rec, so that it becomes clear how we see the rec impacting users

> 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".

I wasn't proposing taking about "how" -- but of making it clear what 
of value are specific to the DAWG rec.

 From that, we can derive requirements.

If it's not clear in the use cases which bits of value are in scope and
which are not (simply used to illustrate the use case) then we have
a *much* harder time when it comes to deriving requirements.

> 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.

Do you find many, if any, technical features in any of my use cases?

If you could point those out to me, I will try to reduce the occurence 
of such.

I'm also not clear on what you deem "technical".



Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 03:12:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC