Re: SKOS use cases format

Hello Alistair,

Thanks again for initiating the stuff! I have some comments, some minor 
and some more important, inline

> Hi Antoine, Jon, Daniel,
>
> How about this for a call for use cases and use case format ...
>
> ---
>
>   W3C Semantic Web Deployment Working Group
>   Call for Use Cases: Simple Knowledge Organisation Systems (SKOS)
>
> Are you currently using SKOS, or considering using SKOS in the near 
> future? If so, please tell us more by filling in the questionnaire 
> below and sending it to:
>   public-swd-wg@w3.org
> The information you provide will be influential in guiding the further 
> development of SKOS towards W3C Recommendation status.
> <snip>

I find the introduction text very good. My only comment on this point 
would ba about the mail adress. Perhaps we'll find people there 
reluctant to send something to a complete public group. What do you 
think of putting one (or more) personal address instead of the WG list? 
Of course after trivial checking with contributors the use case would be 
available for the complete WG, that's necessary.

>
>
>
>   SKOS Use Case Questionnaire
>   ---------------------------
>
>   Section 1. Vocabularies
>
> In this section we ask you to provide some information about the 
> vocabulary or vocabularies you would like to be able to represent 
> using SKOS.
>
> [N.B. if your use case describes a generic application of one or more 
> vocabularies and/or vocabulary mappings, skip straight to section 3.]
>
> 1.1. What is the title of the vocabulary(ies)?

We could have this subsection turned into a general description of the 
vocabulary: additionnally to title, scope and size are important.

>
> 1.2. (*) Please provide below some extracts from the vocabulary(ies). 
> Use the layout or presentation format that you would normally provide 
> for the users of the vocabulary(ies). Please ensure that the extracts 
> you provide illustrate all of the features of the vocabulary(ies).
>
> 1.3. Describe the structure of the vocabulary(ies). What are the main 
> building blocks? What types of relationship are used? If you can, 
> provide examples by referring to the extracts given above.

Seems to me that we could switch 1.2 and 1.3
To answer Daniel's concerns about requirements, we might try to be more 
precise here by mentioning the following points (adapted from a study 
that a Dutch cultural heritage insitute organized recently for 
vocabularies, which btw generally contains elements that validate 
Alistair's proposal)
- main building blocks: type of descriptive concepts (terms, 
classification items with codes, etc.), presence of non-descriptive 
items (qualifiers use to precise the meaning of primitive concepts)
- structure (what type of relationship): hierarchical (with special 
interpretation)? associative? management of homonymy/synonymy? Others?
- organization: are the vocabulary elements gathered according to 
certain characteristics (facets)?

>
> 1.4. Is a machine-readable representation of the vocabulary(ies) 
> already available (e.g. as an XML document)? If so, we'd be grateful 
> if you could provide some example data or point us to a hyperlink.
>
> 1.5. Are any software applications used to create and/or maintain the 
> vocabulary(ies)? Are there any features which these software 
> applications currently lack which are required by your use case?
>
> 1.6. If a database application is used to store and/or manage the 
> vocabulary, how is the database structured?

Are you sure this one is so relevant? It might go into complex features, 
far from the intended vocabulary model (and from contributors'technical 
abilities)

>
> 1.7. Were any published standards, textbooks or written guidelines 
> followed during the design and construction of the vocabulary? Did you 
> decide to diverge from their recommendations in any way, and if so, 
> how and why?
>
> 1.8. How are changes to the vocabulary(ies) managed?
>
> 1.9. Any additional information, references and/or hyperlinks.
>
>
>   Section 2. Vocabulary Mappings
>
> In this section we ask you to provide some information about the 
> mappings or links between vocabularies you would like to be able to 
> represent using SKOS.

Here I'm quite puzzled: I like the idea of having a part dedicated to 
mappings, because SKOS is likely to be also about the links between 
different concept schemes, but I wonder wether this part should be 
independant in the questionnaire. It makes the distinction 
application/vocabularies less pregnant. Why not putting this section as 
(an optional) subection of the application one?

> <snip>
> 2.3. Describe the different types of mapping used, with reference to 
> the examples given above.

Just wording: wouldn't "mapping links"be more precise instead of 
"mapping" alone?

>
>   Section 3. Application
>
> In this section we ask you to provide some information about the 
> application for which the vocabulary(ies) and or vocabulary mappings 
> are being used.
>
> 3.1. What is the title of the application?
>
> 3.2. What is the general purpose of the application? What services 
> does it provide to the end-user?

Here I would make an item about the functionalities involving the 
vocabulary (ies) not optional, and perhaps merged with item 3.6. I think 
I generally liked the way you worded the beginning of your 
"functionality" section in your previous proposal [1]...

>
> 3.3. (*) Provide some examples of the functionality of the 
> application. Try to illustrate all of the functionalities in which the 
> vocabulary(ies) and/or vocabulary mappings are involved.
>
> 3.4. What is the architecture of the application? What are the main 
> components? Are the components and/or the data distributed across a 
> network, or across the Web?
>
> 3.5. Briefly desribe any non-trivial algorithms involved in the 
> processing of user actions, e.g. query expansion algorithms.

I would prefer "strategies" (simpler,perhaps catching more cases) over 
"algorithms". We could perhaps also limit the scope of this question to 
vocabulary-related functionalities

>
> 3.6. Is the functionality associated with the controlled 
> vocabulary(ies) integrated in any way with functionalities provided by 
> other means? (For example, search and browse using a structured 
> vocabulary might be integrated with free-text searching and/or some 
> sort of social bookmarking or recommender system.)
>
> 3.7. Any additional information, references and/or hyperlinks.
>
> ---
> End of questionnaire, thanks again.

Well, for the moment you are the one to be acknowledged for precious 
help ;-)

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2006Nov/0019.html

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2006 09:48:19 UTC