Re: [PROPOSAL] NASA JPL Use Case

Thanks for explanations I really appreciate it.
I’ve been really struggling this last two or so weeks to make the weekly calls so a lot of the context is not with me at the moment. I hope the remedy this ASAP.
I’ll make the wiki contributions as you’ve stated and we can take it from there.
Thank you
Lewis

Dr. Lewis John McGibbney Ph.D., B.Sc., MAGU
Engineering Applications Software Engineer Level 2
Computer Science for Data Intensive Systems Group 398M
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena, California 91109-8099
Mail Stop : 158-256C
Tel:  (+1) (818)-393-7402
Cell: (+1) (626)-487-3476
Fax:  (+1) (818)-393-1190
Email: lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov

           [cid:4152BCBE-2045-4B2A-A6D3-141BFE567C78]

 Dare Mighty Things

From: "Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au<mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>" <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au<mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>>
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 6:49 PM
To: Lewis John McGibbney <lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] NASA JPL Use Case

Hi lewis,




On 10 Apr 2015, at 2:50 am, "Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)" <Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>> wrote:

Hi Kerry,

Hi Lewis, Welcome to the group!


Thank you

Your use case is indeed relevant. For this group proponents are asked to put it on our wiki here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases

I’m looking into doing it right now.

Great.  We will aim to get to it as a group, but as our use case processing is well advanced, ( we closed use case submission on, if i recall, 1 march)  it may get slightly different treatment than most of them.


It would be helpful if you edit it slightly in order to conform to our informal style

I am going to bring up Yolanda’s suggestion (on the first call I attended and scribed for) of establishing a structure and organization for use cases
http://www.w3.org/2015/03/04-sdw-minutes#item01
Is there are reason the WG is deciding to not implement a structured and organized approach to gathering Use Cases? Some of the existing use cases are two sentences long!!! Others are paragraphs in length with scenarios and bullet points highlighting key issues. This seems very ad-hoc to me and I am not sure that the use case fits in based on the lack of apparent structure. Can you or someone else please comment?

Sure, i had to miss the meeting you speak of, but I did read the minutes. IMHO we were too well advanced at that time to go back to the beginning, and had a deadline associated with the f2f meeting to make. I dont have any problem with two sentence use cases, especially where they speak to requirements evident in many other use cases too. Indeed we did discuss several times in earlier meetings way back about what form use cases should take, and decided to be rather non-prescriptive about it.

The chairs and use case editors had also looked how some other similar contemporary groups were handlingthis.

--- especially check out our charted and annotate it with the deliverables (see our charter for their definition) to which  this use case refers. Please see the very first use cases which is a template.  Please make it very clear to readers that  that your requirements references are to a DIFFERENT set of requirements (or just remove them).

I’ve already commented on the Deliverables in a previous email thread .
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Mar/0046.html
By ‘annotate it with deliverables’ you mean tag it with one or more of “OWL Time Ontology, SSN Ontology and/or Coverage in LD”. This seems awfully restrictive does it not?

I do not think so.
We have a well defined charter that describes those deliverables and we have also agreed on some scope questions to be applied to use cases.  By annotating those use cases with the relevant deliverable it helps the group to analyse and process them towards requirements for those deliverables. this is not compulsory, we have processed use cases without it , but we risk losing the insight that the contributor had in mind.

It is certainly  an option for the group to recommend some extra deliverables for a subsequent working group and i would be surprised if we do not. In the spirit of the use of the wiki as discussed yesterday, i urge you to make a note of your ideas on the wiki ( sorry cannot do this myself in the short term as i am only mobile).  Perhaps add a new page under the " current work" ( or similar) heading on the main page for " suggestions for followup work" and record your ideas there so they do not get lost.  If they are actually relevant to fhe deliverables , then you can use the relevant "wish list" sections of the wiki, too. Do please attach your  name to such wiki contributions, so we recall who to talk to about it when it becomes  relevant.


My interpretation of the process of gathering use cases is that the process is kind of rigged towards gathering use cases which conveniently fall into the categories of requiring development of the above three technologies/data representation formats! Does this make sense to you? I am not trying to be awkward I am just trying to understand if and how any NASA Earth/Planetary science project I am working on actually fits into the group deliverables.

Also, I think today we kind-of finished working through the use cases for now – but please do put it up anyway. And we will get back to it.


I’ll see what your/the groups response is.
Thank you very much
Lewis

Please do put the use case on the wiki so members can see it, and if you wish we could add this particular use case as an item for the agenda next meeting, or for some meeting soonish that you can be sure to attend so to speak to it.

Kerry