RE: [UCR] Creating Pages for Abstracted Use Cases

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your feedback and sharing your work.

I do think the intent is to come up with a narrative or abstract that
could be viewed as a use case at a more general level than the
submitted use cases in the category.  

The category you are working with has the most cases; my guess is that
it is probably the hardest to synthesize into something more general.  

I think there are several ways to make this more tractable:

	-  pick out several of the cases that allow you to construct a
coherent story around all the main themes you have identified
		(for example, at least 3-4 of the cases involve a
rule-based system trying to get a logically valid combined-view of
results supplied by querying other rule-based systems)
	
	-  divide the set into two (or more) subsets that have enough
in common to allow general use-cases to be synthesized for each

	-  decide that some of the cases listed do not belong in this
category

	-  decide that some of the cases listed are not amenable to
this kind of analysis but could potentially be used as guidance for
determining requirements.
 
Good luck,

Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Ginsberg, Allen
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [UCR] Creating Pages for Abstracted Use Cases

If I might push back on this suggestion a little ...

It seems to me that an abstraction/categorization of use cases is not  
itself a use case.

I am working on the following pattern at the moment:

<snip>
#pragma section-numbers on


== Abstract ==

Information integration uses cases focus on the merging of multiple  
sources of information to present a unified view to the user.  
Integrating information often involves merging information with  
different semantic sources (databases versus readings from physical  
devices versus accessing content in the form of web pages, knowledge  
bases), different syntactic forms (RDF, OWL, HTML, raw data streams)  
and across different ownership domains.

== Uses case examples ==

The uses cases that come into this general category are:

* ["Automatically generated rules"]
* ["Frame-based representation, Inheritance of defaults, Reification"]
* ["Information Integration with Rules and Taxonomies"]
* ["Internet search: combining query language, rule languages and  
scoped negation"]
* ["Managing incomplete information"]
* ["Ontology Mapping with OWL and Rules"]
* ["Organizing a Vacation with Friends"]
* ["Rule-Based Combined Access to XML and RDF Data"]
* ["Rule-Based Intelligent Guiding"]
* ["Rule-Based Reactive Organizer"]
* ["Scoped negation, Encapsulation"]
* ["Situation Assessment and Adaptation"]
* ["SW rules for Health Care and Life Sciences"]

== Common themes ==

* Multiple sources of information
* Different semantics of rule languages
* Combining information with different semantics
* Different ownership domains

== Requirements arising ==
* Scoping of negation and other inference
* Multiple theories and logics
* Compatibility with legacy information

== Role of rule interchange ==
* A RIF can serve as an inter-lingua and anchor point between the  
different sources of information

== Commentary ==

Information integration is one of the oldest uses of knowledge bases  
systems. It is no surprise that there are many use cases for a RIF  
that exemplify this. Some particular aspects that become important  
with a RIF are the ability to handle information whose semantic basis  
is itself heterogeneous (for example, an LP-based system has  
information that needs to be combined with an OWL-based system and a  
'raw' XML-based system) and also an ability to be able to freely  
combine information across ownership domains (i.e., combining  
information belonging to more than one party).

This has implications for the kinds of inference needed and for the  
kinds of scoping (such as in negation) needed. This is over and above  
normal engineering requirements arising from combining information in  
a variety of syntactic forms.
</snip>

Frank



On Jan 11, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Ginsberg, Allen wrote:

>
> This message is for those of you who volunteered to come up with a
use
> case template for one of the general categories of use cases  
> abstracted
> from the submitted use cases.
>
> I don't recall that we said exactly how to edit the Wiki to do this.
> What I just did was to create a new use case (using the existing use
> case template) with the general category as the title and link to
that
> from the "General_Use_Case_Categories"  page.
>
> I couldn't figure out how to make the section heading into a link,  
> so I
> created a link beneath the heading as follows:
>
> 	== Third Party Rule-Interchange Services ==
>
>  	* ["Third Party Rule-Interchange Services"]
>
>   	Abstracts:
>
> 	  * ["Message Transformation"]
>         * ["Operationally Equivalent Translations"]
>         * ["Rule-based Service Level Agreements (SLA) and Web
> Services"]
>         * ["Rule Based Service Level Management and SLAs for Service
> Oriented Computing"]
>
>
> If any has a better approach, by all means let us know.
>
> Allen
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 23:53:51 UTC