Re: [RDFa] Review Use Cases

Hi everyone,
I have reviewed the RDFa Use Cases and have some comments. I want to 
echo Alistair's comments below, especially in terms of the issue 
about the function of this document. I thought the goal was not to 
show a solution to any use case but to elicit requirements only. And 
further, there seems to me to be much overlap in the use case in 
terms of requirements. It would be best to only have use cases that 
overlap little in requirements (and thus fewer use cases), so that 
when reviewing them it's easier to spot the unique requirements.

I also found the example blocks of HTML/RDFa quite long and difficult 
to spot where exactly RDFa was a good fit to the use case. I'd 
suggest smaller HTML blocks for examples.

Thanks
Daniel

At 06:43 AM 1/23/2007, Alistair Miles wrote:

>Hi all, below is a few comments on the RDFa Use cases document [1].
>
>  - General Comments
>
>1. What is the intended function of this document? Is it intended to 
>give people a general idea of why and when RDFa might be useful? Or 
>is it intended to provide the input to a design process?
>
>Normally a use cases document provides the backdrop to the design of 
>a solution. However, because the use cases in this document present 
>a fragment of HTML containing RDFa (as currently specified), the 
>document presumes a solution.
>
>I suggest that, for each use case, a fragment of HTML be presented 
>without any RDFa, and the set of RDF statements that you want to be 
>embedded in the fragment be presented separately.
>
>This would give you the beginnings of a set of test cases.
>
>Also, note that because the document contains examples that use 
>RDFa, if you change the design of RDFa at all you will have to go 
>back and change your use cases document as well.
>
>2. Use case 5 doesn't seem to be an RDFa use case. It is a use case 
>for transferring fragments of (any) HTML between applications. The 
>only new information it provides is that any RDF statements 
>expressed as RDFa in such an HTML fragment should be properly 
>preserved when the fragment is transferred.
>
>3. Use case 6 doesn't seem to be an RDFa use case either, because it 
>doesn't introduce any new requirements for RDFa. It just says, RDFa 
>might be used in semantic wikis.
>
>  - Specific Comments
>
>"chock-full" - is very culture specific language, suggest use 
>something more neutral.
>
>"The expressed structure is closely tied to the data" - I don't know 
>what this means.
>
>"copied and pasted" - copying and pasting is maybe too specific to 
>UI style or user environment, should probably talk about 
>transferring data between applications, where "copying and pasting" 
>is a particular euphemism for doing this.
>
>"HTML chunks" - "chunks" is very informal terminology. Also title is 
>not particularly informative.
>
>End review.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/scenarios/20070109/
>--
>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 Saturday, 27 January 2007 23:15:34 UTC