- From: Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:02:49 +0200
- To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: "public-xg-lld" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Unfortunately I didn't find any news at the wiki to the ongoing UC template development. If I just missed it, please point me to the right site, so we could start the population of a first UC example. Cheers, Alexander -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Antoine Isaac Gesendet: Montag, 28. Juni 2010 15:05 An: Matola, Tod Cc: Jodi Schneider; public-xg-lld Betreff: [Spam-Wahrscheinlichkeit=99]Re: wiki page for use cases? Tod, Jodi, Thanks! To make it more centralized, I have adapted [2] to point to it. Antoine [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCases#Cases > Jodi, > > To make the use case notes [1] into a wiki page easier to find and work > with. > > Cheers Tod. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseNotes > > On 6/27/10 2:29 PM, "Jodi Schneider"<jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote: > >> I'm wondering if we're ready to create a wiki page for use cases, even if >> we're not yet sure how we'll format/share them in the future. >> >> I think it's going to be easier to keep track of these as we go along than >> fish them out of the listserv later. (Thanks, Tom, btw, for the useful ideas!) >> >> -Jodi >> >> On 27 Jun 2010, at 13:04, Matola, Tod wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Looking over Ed's talk [1] I was able to name another case or two >>> >>> - Bibliographic Networks, use Linked Data to reflect the relationships >>> across the FRBR entities. Link editions, translations, media formats. Link >>> people to all of their works. So discovery is better, delivery is >>> better,.... >>> (NOTE: I hope I'm using network in the right context here.) >>> >>> - Link Social Bibliography to a Bibliographic Network. Link reveiws, tags, >>> lists, cover art to a work. This seems like a variation on the enrich a >>> record use case. >>> >>> Cheers Tod. >>> >>> [1] http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/06/24/confessions-of-a-graph-addict/ >>> >>> On 6/24/10 7:56 AM, "Matola, Tod"<matolat@oclc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> We could look at these 2 cases? >>>> >>>> 1) the Swedish Union Catalogue [1] - enrich a record (point to dbpedia) >>>> 2) Linking to authority data [2] [3] [4]. >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.libraries.ngc4lib/4617 >>>> [2] >>>> https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1004&L=NGC4LIB&T=0&F=&S=&P=31709 >>>> [3] http://outgoing.typepad.com/outgoing/2009/09/viaf-as-linked-data.html >>>> [4] http://id.loc.gov/authorities/ >>>> >>>> Cheers Tod. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/23/10 3:38 PM, "Antoine Isaac"<aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for starting the discussion indeed! >>>>> >>>>> I had the same feeling as Emmanuelle re. the abstraction of the use cases >>>>> of >>>>> the Prov XG. I wouldn't refuse generic stuff, on the other hand. Our group >>>>> is >>>>> also to prepare the future, it would be nice if we could have some >>>>> innovative >>>>> scenarios as well. >>>>> >>>>> Also, a constraint I'd be reluctant to impose is the "usage" aspect. While >>>>> it >>>>> is a crucial part of our mission, it could be that many institutions around >>>>> us >>>>> are just happy with publishing data (as part of a knowledge provider >>>>> mission) >>>>> and not developing new and complex usages themselves. >>>>> >>>>> To sum it up I think we should both accommodate both generic, possibly very >>>>> innovative "use cases" and concrete, maybe less ambitious "realizations". I >>>>> guess I'm in line with what Jodi hinted, here. >>>>> >>>>> In fact in SKOS we used the term "use cases", but we had a mixture of >>>>> already >>>>> implemented things and projects being still investigated. >>>>> One crucial point is that all of them were starting from *existing data*. >>>>> Would it be realistic to require a similar "reality check" constraint from >>>>> the >>>>> (use) cases we want to have? Or do you prefer to allow complete freedom? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm quite sure that the "existing work" section that Kai's template feature >>>>> could provide the hook for realizations. We'd just have to extend it a bit, >>>>> maybe with some of the fields of the SKOS template [1] (I agree we don't >>>>> need >>>>> all the "describe your vocabularies" questions in the SKOS template). >>>>> >>>>> I also really like some of the curation guidelines [3]. If we sent the >>>>> template as a questionnaire to the community, we should try to use them to >>>>> make the questions more precise! >>>>> >>>>> Finally, there are two questions that I like in the SWEO template: >>>>>> 7. Conclusions, which included a bulleted list of the main benefits of the >>>>>> Semantic Web for your organization. >>>>>> 8. It would be ideal if you could provide a quote from your senior >>>>>> management >>>>>> as to how the Semantic Web solution provides additional value. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we don't need two categories, but I think it would be nice to get >>>>> some >>>>> motivational talk for the cases, beyond the technical description! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Antoine >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/UCFormat >>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ >>>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCCuration >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for getting this conversation started, Emmanuelle--and thanks, >>>>>> Kai, for giving us something concrete to work with! >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22 Jun 2010, at 21:57, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some comments and questions regarding the Use Case Template [1]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First a very general comment : it is not really clear to me if we're >>>>>>> looking for use cases scenarios (services that we imagine could be >>>>>>> created), or use cases that provide a feedback on actual >>>>>>> implentations, projects, etc. that are undertaken in libraries. In the >>>>>>> charter, it looks like the latter was intended. >>>>>> >>>>>> The main thing that stands out to me in the charter is >>>>>> "help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web" >>>>>> For me, this means taking a larger systems view, to ensure >>>>>> interoperability beyond libraries. I'm very much in favor of soliciting >>>>>> use cases for library/cultural heritage data widely, and hope we'll get >>>>>> feedback from 'superpatrons' who want to use the data, as well as from >>>>>> other organizations and businesses who may integrate bibliographic >>>>>> details in their own environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps we're conflating multiple tasks? From what you say next, I start >>>>>> to think that two related efforts could be useful: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What I understood from last telecon was that in the Provenance group, >>>>>>> the use cases were more theoretical, and were consolidated in a few >>>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>>> In the SWEO use cases [2], it is rather about describing an existing >>>>>>> project/implementation. >>>>>>> In the end, I think both ways are interesting, but I would be in favor >>>>>>> of a specific section in the template to express if the use-case was >>>>>>> implemented, by whom, and what was the outcome : was it successful, >>>>>>> or not, and why. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you mention, besides use cases, we could (separately) _inventory >>>>>> existing *uses*_. Identifying existing Linked Data projects and >>>>>> implementations in libraries, archives, museums, etc... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Small comment on the introduction of the template : >>>>>>> "It should not be confused with specifying the technology itself: a >>>>>>> use case may allow for many alternatives to achieving user needs." >>>>>>> I wonder if really fits our goals : we want use cases that show how >>>>>>> Linked data can help libraries achieve their tasks, not generic use >>>>>>> cases for library tasks. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this could be clarified, but it helps to look, also, at the >>>>>> previous line: >>>>>> >>>>>> "A use case describes what a user can do with a system, by specifying a >>>>>> sequence of interactions between user and system leading to a desirable >>>>>> outcome." >>>>>> >>>>>> That is, a use case is not an implementation. I agree that Linked Data >>>>>> could be mentioned here for clarity! >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here again, I think our focus is different from Provenance XG. For >>>>>>> them, Linked Data is the context, and provenance data is the goal. For >>>>>>> us, library data is the context, and Linked Data is the goal. Quite >>>>>>> the opposite ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Nicely said! >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding dimensions : related to my previous comments, I think we >>>>>>> need to define library dimensions rather than Linked data dimensions. >>>>>>> for instance I would suggest dimensions such as : >>>>>>> - library catalogues for users : >>>>>>> -- bibliographic data >>>>>>> -- thesauri, authorities >>>>>>> -- collaborative data (reviews, comments, tags) >>>>>>> - library data exchanges (between libraries, B2B) >>>>>>> - management data >>>>>>> -- user logs or usage data >>>>>>> -- loan information >>>>>>> -- administrative& preservation metadata >>>>>>> -etc. >>>>>>> These are just a few ideas as a starting point. >>>>>> >>>>>> These make sense to me, and I think you've highlighted the important >>>>>> aspects from the library "business" perspective! We can give more >>>>>> thought, then, to external uses and data exchanges. And determine >>>>>> whether cultural heritage gives us additional dimensions (i.e. is rights >>>>>> metadata worth its own category). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Emmanuelle >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UCTemplate1 >>>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Jodi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers Tod >>> >>> >>> Cheers Tod >>> -- >>> ³OS/360 is like a cow.² Itıs not the most beautiful or efficient, and many >>> people think they can design a better one. But if you put hay and water in >>> one end, you get fertilizer from the other end and milk from the middle. You >>> can use it effectively if you recognize its limitations and remember which >>> end is which. -- Harlan Mills >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > Cheers Tod
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 07:03:25 UTC