Re: Use case facets

Melli,

sounds good to me. One comment, though: in theory at least the 
separation between use case and case study is based on whether it is 
deployed or not. In this sense, that facet may be unnecessary...

The other question is the granularity of the technology. Eg, level of 
OWL. But it may be impossible to find that out and going back to the 
authors is not really realistic...

Based on that, the 1000$ question: will you guys give me the values for 
the facets? :-)

ivan

Melliyal Annamalai wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>   Late regrets, I got pulled into an urgent call at my company.
> 
>   Here is the note on the use case facets I should have sent last week.  
> If folks on the group are OK with these facets we will start working on 
> incorporating these in the webpage.
> 
>  We have come up with the following facets for the use cases. The first 
> three are already facets on the page now.
> 
> Institution's Activity Area
> Application
> Country
> Benefits of using Semantics
> Deployed or not: Choices are: Yes
> Technologies used: Choices are: RDF, OWL, SPARQL, In-house ontology, 
> Public ontology
> 
>   Here is an example of some terms that we identified from use case #5 
> (Case Study: Composing a Safer Drug Regimen for each Patient with 
> Semantic Web Technologies)
> 
> Institution's Activity Area: Healthcare
> Application: Data integration, Data sharing
> Country: USA
> Benefits: Support of an evolving schema, Ability to represent relationships
> Deployed or not: Unsure (so we would not store anything for this facet 
> for this use case)
> Technologies used: RDF, OWL, In-house ontology
> 
> Let us know what you think.
> 
> Melli and Lee
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf