- From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:55:25 +0100
- To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <54FF21FD.2030003@geodan.nl>
I'm forwarding this message to the group, as prompted by Phil who thought that it should be part of the archive because it contains substantive opinions on the WG's work. Frans -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: sdwwg use case deliverable Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 18:29:07 +0100 From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> CC: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, phila@w3.org Hello all, I am sorry for not being able to contribute earlier - I have been ill for eleven days. Luckily I got better in time for travelling to Barcelona! When I volunteered for working on the use cases and requirements I envisaged a kind of collection of linked entities. Not necessarily Linked Data in the RDF sense, but linked blocks of HTML. These entities would at least be the use cases, requirements and deliverables. The use cases are already there as blocks of text, they only need to have persistent identifiers. Requirements can be blocks of text with persistent identifiers too, and use cases and requirements can be linked by a single relationship: requirements are derived from use cases. Requirements, in turn, can be linked to deliverables. That is already done in the headers of the use cases, but we could use the URLs of the deliverables. In my mind, we can create HTML that can show you related deliverables and requirements when you look up a use case, and so on. This approach hopefully makes things manageable and give meaningful insight into how thing are related. It is also extendible - I can imagine that in the future we will have things like example implementations or proofs of concepts. Such things could also be related to use cases, requirements and deliverables. As for the practical approach that Alejandro has proposed: I think that could work. Splitting up in smaller working groups keeps people awake and involved. Personally, I think it would be hard to pick a group because all are interesting. But I am sure we will be able to form well-balanced groups. As for scoping the use cases (or requirements): if this means rejecting certain uses cases or requirements I would not be in favour. I see more sense in ranking than in rejecting (I believe I wrote about that earlier on the list). It has the same purpose: restricting the things we will burden ourselves with, but it is more flexible and it does not incur a loss of information. Maybe the the separate thematic groups could also give their opinions on what they consider to be the most relevant (in scope) requirements in the final presentations? Greetings, Frans On 2015-03-03 1:10, Alejandro Llaves wrote: > Hi all, > > my suggestion is to spend the first 30 minutes (9:15 to 9:45) in > > 1. classifying the use cases in Best Practice, SSN, Time, Coverage, > Unsure. This is (partially) already done by contributors, use > cases with various tags should be redundant in their corresponding > groups. > 2. Depending on the attendees and the number of use cases per group, > ask for volunteers to split into subgroups (ditto at the draft > agenda). A group with many use cases, i.e. SSN, could be divided > into more subgroups. > > Then, spend the following two hours (assuming a 30-minutes coffee > break in between, 9:45 to 11:45) in extracting AT LEAST ONE > requirement per use case, each subgroup focusing on its category, e.g. > the output of the Time subgroup should be requirements related to > temporal aspects and the Time ontology. What to do with use cases with > non clear requirements or classified in a wrong group? Re-distribute, > discard them, ask contributor for more details...? > > At the end of this session, each subgroup presents in 5 minutes the > requirements from each use case + 5 minutes for discussion. With 18 > attendees and potentially 6 subgroups, this could take around one hour > (11:45 to 12:45). > > The last 15 minutes until 13:00 could be used as a wrap-up of the > requirements list and conclusions. > > I am not sure about having the "scoping questions to use cases" after > this session. Maybe, to apply the scoping questions could be the > previous step to this session? > > My two cents :) Comments are more than welcomed. > > Alejandro > > 2015-03-02 17:35 GMT+11:00 <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au > <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>>: > > Frans, Alex, > > Would you like to think a bitabout how you would like to see the > use case session running at the f2f? > > And let us (at least me and ed) know of your ideas? > > Optionally, you could suggest a way of working at the beginning of > hte session. > > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/index.php?title=F2f_Barcelona&action=edit§ion=1 > (this is a moving feast right now). > > Kerry > > *Dr Kerry Taylor* > > *Principal Research Scientist* > > Digital Productivity, CSIRO > > Adjunct Professor, ANU; Principal Fellow, University of Melbourne; > Visiting Reader, University of Surrey, UK > > E:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> or > Kerry.Taylor@acm.org <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@acm.org> T:+61 2 6216 > 7038 S:kerryleataylor > > Post: CSIRO Digital Productivity Flagship, GPO Box 664, Canberra > ACT 2601, Australia > > Street: Computer Science & Information Technology (Building 108), > Australian National University, North Road, Acton ACT, Australia > > www.csiro.au <http://www.csiro.au/> > > > > > -- > Alejandro Llaves > > Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) > > Facultad de Informática > > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid > > Avda. Montepríncipe s/n > > Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain > > > http://www.oeg-upm.net/index.php/phd/325-allaves > > > allaves@fi.upm.es <mailto:allaves@fi.upm.es> > > > /During February and March 2015, I will be doing a research stay at > CSIRO Canberra > <http://www.csiro.au/Portals/About-CSIRO/Where-we-are/Australian-Capital-Territory/CSIRO-at-ANU.aspx> (Australia) > working on semantic sensor networks. / > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Frans Knibbe Geodan President Kennedylaan 1 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl> | disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 16:56:06 UTC