Re: Use Case template

Thank you Alex for clarifying the context.

I'd like to bring this up again before our next call, because we need to
reach an agreement on the use case template now.
The discussion page at [1] is currently empty. So we will probably need to
discuss the template again on next call.
Maybe we can have a discussion on each part of the template and decide if we
keep it / drop it / edit it.

Following the discussions we already had, we could start with the following
:

Name -> no problem,  keep

Owner -> no problem,  keep

Background and Current Practice -> no problem,  keep

Goal -> to be edited to make it clear that it's meant to be the goal of the
actor in the scenario, not the goal of the use case

Use Case Scenario -> no problem,  keep

Target Audience  -> added by Joachim. The group finds it useful but it
should be optional. To be edited : we need to add guidelines on how to fill
it.

Application of linked data for the given use case -> not discussed yet. Is
that clear to everyone ?

Existing Work -> to be edited to add prototypes

Related Vocabularies  -> no problem,  keep

Problems and Limitations -> not discussed yet. Is that clear to everyone ?

Related Use Cases and Unanticipated Uses (optional) -> not discussed yet. Is
that clear to everyone ?

Library Linked Data Dimensions / Topics -> confusing. Drop it, or keep it
only for curation ?

References -> no problem,  keep

Prototypes and Applications  -> added by Joachim. Drop it: content to be put
under "existing work".

Comments welcome on this proposal. I'm copying my mail in the discussion
page of the template, so you're welcome to make your comments there.
Emmanuelle


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Use_Case_Template

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> In addition to our telco from yesterday some comments to make sure the
templates are applicable for upcoming UCs.
>
> First, I’d like to give some extra information regarding our template
elaboration. Kai and I are both computer scientists so we are driven by
experience of UC modeling (UML etc.) in the context of software development.
As a consequence our chosen approach is similar to the one used in software
engineering. It’s a user-centered approach. That means we try to identify
user needs by analyzing the interaction of an actor (librarian, end user as
data consumer, data provider – every imaginable user!) with a particular
system (an already existing one or just an idea of a system).
>
> The conclusion of system requirements (in our case requirements for linked
data in libraries) is in software engineering processes the next step and
usually by use cases in this form pretty easy. However, this doesn’t mean
this approach is best for LLD-XG needs.
> Nevertheless, we would first like to make sure that you got our thinking
and then we can discuss the need to modify the UC gathering process to suit
LLD XG requirements.
>
> From that on we should have a closer look to the single parts of the UC
template and the descriptions therefore. The discussion yesterday showed the
ambiguity of the goal-section. Karen stated the major goal, but actually we
intended to highlight (1) the actor’s goal in this particular UC and (2) how
linked data can support this specific actor’s goal. This is also pointed out
by the comments of Kai in the Open Library UC [1].
>
> We have to make sure that the template is unambiguous regarding our common
understanding of it’s purpose and intended use and after this our UC
template should probably be ready to go…
>
> Cheers, Alexander
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Open_Library_Data
>
>
>
> --
> Alexander Haffner
> Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
> Informationstechnik
> Adickesallee 1
> D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Telefon: +49-69-1525-1766
> Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
> mailto:a.haffner@d-nb.de
> http://www.d-nb.de


--
=====
Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
Manue - http://www.figoblog.org