- From: Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:02:05 +0000
- To: Daniel Rubin <dlrubin@stanford.edu>
- CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org
Daniel Rubin wrote: > Yes, makes sense. By "vocabulary extract" I presume you mean the entire > vocabulary. No, I meant part of a vocabulary. The use case should provide extracts that illustrate all of the different features of the vocabulary. (It could also provide a reference to the entire vocabulary.) Cheers, Alistair. > 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 > > -- 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 Monday, 27 November 2006 10:18:30 UTC