Re: SKOS use cases format

Yes, makes sense. By "vocabulary extract" I presume you mean the 
entire vocabulary. Since many applications of the terminologies have 
not been defined yet, I suspect requirements will be driven by 
representational requirements of the individual terminologies.
Daniel.

At 06:15 AM 11/23/2006, Alistair Miles wrote:
>Hi Daniel,
>
>Daniel Rubin wrote:
>>My question though is what we will do with this--exactly how will 
>>responses to these questions drive SKOS requirements?
>
>My idea was that the vocabulary extracts could act as test cases for 
>SKOS - for each extract we could ask, is it possible to create a 
>SKOS representation that carries the same information? Or, more 
>tangibly, is it possible to create a SKOS representation, such that 
>the original extract can be regenerated automatically?
>
>I.e. the vocabulary extracts in the use cases we select would, to a 
>first approximation, define the representational *scope* of SKOS. 
>The descriptions of the applications then help to refine the 
>representational scope, by informing us as to which data are 
>actually required to achieve specific functionalities, bearing in 
>mind that the ultimate goal of SKOS is to enable (as yet 
>unspecified) functionality.
>
>Does that make sense?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Alistair.
>
>>I was expecting that we collect information about each use case to 
>>directly drive requirements of SKOS. So I was expecting each 
>>question to somehow hit on what exactly needs to be in SKOS, but 
>>it's not completely clear to me in looking at these questions. 
>>Maybe something to discuss when we chat on our tcon.
>>Daniel
>>At 04:26 AM 11/22/2006, Alistair Miles wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>We understand that your time is precious, so please don't feel you 
>>>have to answer every question. However, the more information you 
>>>can provide, the easier it will be for the Working Group to 
>>>understand your requirements. Questions marked with an asterix (*) 
>>>are more important.
>>>
>>>We are particularly interested in use cases describing the use of 
>>>controlled structured vocabularies in distributed, metadata-driven 
>>>applications. This includes the use of thesauri, classification 
>>>schemes, subject heading systems and taxonomies to facilitate 
>>>discovery and retrieval of information. This also includes 
>>>situations where two or more vocabularies must be "mapped" or 
>>>"linked" in order to provide applications using heterogeneous 
>>>metadata from different sources.
>>>
>>>However, we're not ruling anything out at this stage, and the 
>>>Working Group will carefully consider all submissions we receive.
>>>
>>>On behalf of the Working Group, thanks in advance for your time,
>>>
>>>[names]
>>>
>>>
>>>   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)?
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>[N.B. if your use case does not involve vocabulary mappings or 
>>>links skip straight to section 3.]
>>>
>>>2.1. Which vocabularies are you linking/mapping from/to?
>>>
>>>2.2. (*) Please provide below some extracts from the mappings or 
>>>links between the vocabularies. Use the layout or presentation 
>>>format that you would normally provide for the users of the 
>>>mappings. Please ensure that the examples you provide illustrate 
>>>all of the different types of mapping or link.
>>>
>>>2.3. Describe the different types of mapping used, with reference 
>>>to the examples given above.
>>>
>>>2.4. Any additional information, references and/or hyperlinks.
>>>
>>>
>>>   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?
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Alistair Miles wrote:
>>>>Hi Antoine,
>>>>Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>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).
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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).
>>>>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.
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Alistair.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Alistair Miles
>>>Research Associate
>>>CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>>>Building R1 Room 1.60
>>>Fermi Avenue
>>>Chilton
>>>Didcot
>>>Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
>>>United Kingdom
>>>Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
>>>Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>>>Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
>
>--
>Alistair Miles
>Research Associate
>CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>Building R1 Room 1.60
>Fermi Avenue
>Chilton
>Didcot
>Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
>United Kingdom
>Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
>Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
>Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2006 15:52:28 UTC