Re: [UCR] Creating Pages for Abstracted Use Cases

Hi Allen:
  I can try, but cannot do this by this morning. :-/

  I would have to also ask why there is so much time pressure on this.

Frank

On Jan 11, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Ginsberg, Allen wrote:

> 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 Thursday, 12 January 2006 15:51:26 UTC