Re: Use case facets

Hi Susie,

    We will aim to do that.  Ivan has pointed us to the file that needs 
to be edited, and that is the file that we will editing to include the 
details for each facet category (as opposed to sending them via an 
email).  Does that make sense - or did you want the details on the list 
as well before we edit the file?

Melli

PS: My note on the list responding to Susie's and Ivan's feedback was 
not allowed to go through for some reason, I am reproducing it here - 
essentially I am agreeing with Susie and Ivan that we will drop the 
'level of deployment' facet.

Susie, Ivan,

  Thanks for your comments, and I think you are both making the same 
point.  I had not realized that the two categories - use cases and case 
studies - reflected the level of deployment. I agree that we can drop 
that facet.

Melli


Susie M Stephens wrote:
>
> Hi Melli,
>
> Will you be able to send out the details for each facet category by 
> Monday?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Susie
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> *  From: *Melliyal Annamalai [melliyal.annamalai@oracle.com]
> *  Sent: *03/19/2008 10:12 AM AST
> *  To: *W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
> *  Subject: *Use case facets
>
>
>
> 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
>
>