RE: Use Case template

I can attest to the fact that portraying my use case with realistic actors has been extremely challenging and I continue to worry about the level of abstraction involved. I'm hoping to have this "Subject Search" use case "finished" by Thursday, but I can't promise it will be any more transparent than anything else I've ever said.

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Subject_Search

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:45 PM
> To: Emmanuelle Bermes
> Cc: Haffner, Alexander; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Use Case template
> 
> Hi Alexander, Emmanuelle,
> 
> In fact I'd like to react on the "goal" section--even though I don't
> want to forget the others, they need attention as well :-)
> 
> I've been thinking on the discussion we had last week, on Alexander's
> mail and Kai's edition of Karen's case [1]. And the more I think, the
> more I'm convinced we should *not* try to enforce the case to present
> actors' (i.e., end users') goals. Or at least not in the template we
> circulate outside of this group.
> 
> I think many linked data cases will indeed not come with a clear-cut,
> user-oriented goal. This is just inherent to the linked data vision for
> which a vague motivation such as "We want to expose data as linked-
> data" (to re-use Kai's word) is plainly acceptable.
> 
> There are quite obvious cases, such as for data.gov.uk or other sites
> which have a "general service mission". They stop somehow half-way in
> the complete software development process. They point at useful apps as
> examples/success stories of course, but they don't try to enforce
> specific scenario(s). Note that this doesn't make their life easier, or
> less interesting: in fact their data must be generic/precise enough to
> accommodate a wide variety of relevant use cases (fully-fledged cases
> with real actors, this time ;-) )
> 
> Such cases will also happen in the library domain. This is I believe
> the case for id.loc.gov, for example. They point at some "benefits" [2]
> but those still aim at quite a variety of uses--and these remain
> *really* vague.
> 
> Would we ask use case contributors (especially these outside this
> group) to articulate such a statement, or even to do better by
> themselves? I think this could deter them, and that we should still
> allow both "goal approaches" to co-exist.
> 
> To me, it should be rather *our role* to try to make more explicit the
> goals at the level of actors/end users for the producer-oriented cases.
> In fact it could be one great outcome of the group to come with a set
> of generic actor-level goals that can be re-used as motivation for the
> "We want to expose data as linked-data" cases to come. A kind of
> generic flyer for LLD.
> 
> Do not take me wrong, again I think Kai's work on Karen's case is
> excellent. And it's good that Karen is here to say whether she's happy
> or not with Kai's attempt. All this is really useful and can help our
> group to produce a really crucial bit of deliverable. But this should
> happen only for people who feel motivated enough for such an exercise
> :-) [3]
> 
> So, to sum up: we try to do it in the group in a later
> curation/analysis step, we do not request everyone else outside  to do
> it.
> Do you think we could get consensus on that?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Use_Case_Open
> _Library_Data&oldid=565
> [2] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/about.html
> [3] In fact given the time it took us to realize, I imagine that a
> template that tries to ensure appropriate actor-level goal may become
> very long and contribute to make the use case filling task (even more)
> tedious.
> 
> 
> > 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
> > <mailto: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 <mailto:a.haffner@d-nb.de>
> >  > http://www.d-nb.de
> >
> >
> > --
> > =====
> > Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
> > Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 21:00:02 UTC