- From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 21:25:06 +0200
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Hi Sandro, The feedback from the three reviews (below) indicates that requirements and critical success factors should be removed (i.e. UCR would become UC), and that the use cases should be represented in the syntax and semantics of RIF FLD/BLD -- guiding others to RIF. I already started representing the current use cases, but several further updates and new examples are needed. Since RIF BLD and FLD are now more stable and UCR has been considered as an important phase 1 publication, it is now the prefect time to discuss the final phase 1 shape of UC(R), so that I can finish my work on it. >From Igor’s review: Requirements seem irrelevant at this stage and should be dropped from the title, and Critical Factor Analysis is also mostly irrelevant. The main purpose of the UC document should be motivation for RIF and illustrations how FLD/BLD address various aspects of use cases. >From Chris’s review: Up until now, the UCR document has provided us a set of requirements, as well as some "design constraints" that have guided our design of BLD. Going forward, the UCR document will serve as a publicity vehicle for RIF. It's purpose is not to guide us anymore, but to guide others to RIF, to explain as simply as possible what RIF dialects are for and why anyone should consider using them. It should not be a tutorial, focusing on the "Why use RIF"? questions and not "How to use RIF", but it should do this with clear motivating examples (i.e. Use Cases) expressed in the syntax&semantics we have developed. >From Gary’s review: What I would expect from the UCR: Use cases that motivate and illustrate the proposed Phase I technical solution (FLD/BLD and XML/RDF/OWL integration). Some consistency amongst the use cases, including using the same syntax (some simplified FLD presentation syntax) and describing how to access XML or RDF data as frames. What I get upon reading the UCR: Use cases with little consistency amongst themselves (not guided by the same solution) and that claim to motivate a questionable hierarchy of "critical success factors". The document is useless as a tutorial or primer to the technical specification. -Adrian -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Sandro Hawke Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2008 20:20 An: Adrian Paschke Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org Betreff: Re: RIF UCR --> RIF UC > As you recommended, I will split off the requirements so that UCR becomes > RIF UC and will further tailor the use cases to RIF BLD. I'd want to hear and think about this more before endorsing such a move, as (I imagine) would most of the rest of the WG. Can you summarize the idea and the arguments? -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 19:25:55 UTC