Re: SKOS use cases format

Hello Alistair,

Sorry for the delay...

>>
>> 2. Independance of vocabulary section with respect to functionality 
>> section
>> I think that from our SKOS perspective it's important to emphasize on 
>> the vocabulary section for use case description. Even if you make the 
>> point in [3] that application focus is crucial, SKOS is finally about 
>> representing vocabularies. And I believe it's important for use case 
>> providers that they can express their needs with respect to this core 
>> aspect of their business. And therefore to do it in a section thay 
>> can immediately identify.
>
>
> How about if we divide a use case into two sections, a 
> "vocabulary(ies)" section and an "application" section?
>
> The "vocabulary(ies)" section would come first, and be centred around 
> extracts from one or more vocabularies.
>
> The "application" section would come second, and provide a description 
> of a current or proposed application of the vocabulary(ies).

So the only formal differences between your first proposal [1] and your 
new one (I think I got it, but for some reason I prefer to be sure) 
would be:
- the grouping of application-related items (introduction, 
functionalities, notes)
- changing the order of application and vocabulary parts.

>
> If a vocab has already been described in another use case, then a 
> submission could be "application-only" and refer to the previous use 
> case where the vocabulary is described.
>
> We could indicate that we would accept "vocab-only" submissions, but 
> encourage submissions that include an application.

I think this could answer my concern, while still giving the emphasis on 
application. +1!

I actually wonder now wether if it is useful to change the order between 
application part and vocabulary part, if wehave such a flexible 
framework successfully managed. Actually, for the application cases it 
might be very counter-intuitive to have vocabulary first. Ideally, I 
think we could let the user choose the order, depending on his/fer 
focus. But I'm not sure this will make the explanation of the format 
very easy...

>
>>
>> 3. Link to ISO standards.
>> Guus mentioned in [4] that we should link the use case to ISO 
>> standards. I think we should encourage the contributors to do so, if 
>> their case is already linked to it. I favor the addition of a 
>> "(non)compliance with existing encoding/representational standards" 
>> item in the vocabulary section. But I think we should mention the 
>> fact that filling this item is not mandatory, some vocabularies being 
>> developped outside of such considerations.
>
>
> I think it's important that we encourage submissions to present 
> extracts from their vocabulary(ies) according to whatever 
> human-readable layout(s)/format(s) they already use within the given 
> application (or intend to use within a planned application).

Agreed.

>
> I think it would be good to know if any particular standards or 
> guidelines were followed in the construction, maintenance and/or 
> presentation of the vocabularies. If a particular standard has been 
> followed, we could also ask the submission to highlight if any 
> decisions were made to diverge from the standard, why those decisions 
> were made, and diverge in what way.
>
> However, note that ISO 2788 doesn't really define a notion of 
> "compliance" or "conformance", and that there is plenty of room for 
> interpretation within that standard - so asking whether a vocabulary 
> "complies" with ISO 2788 may not give us much information.

I was unclear, sorry. I was more thinking about a criteria like 
"developped with [standard X] in mind" or not, therefore something 
closer to what you develop in your first paragraph than to formal 
compliance with some format.

Cheers,

Antoine

PS: [I will comment on your formal proposal in a coming mail, I prefer 
to keep track of the general discussion items before]

Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 21:26:08 UTC