W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Fwd: Re: sdwwg use case deliverable

From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:55:25 +0100
Message-ID: <54FF21FD.2030003@geodan.nl>
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org

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&section=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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:15 UTC