Re: Use case template -- user needs

On 7/29/10 12:00 PM, Monica Duke wrote:
> On 29/07/2010 10:26, András Micsik wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> We could use the information consumption lifecycle
>> (collect->interpret->analyze->synthesize->present->publish) as a lead
>> to get a hierarchical list of user needs. It is quite similar to
>> Karen's behaviours image. I tried to sort some of the existing terms:
>>
>> collect:
>> - browse / explore / find / retrieve entities
>> - to select an entity appropriate to the user’s needs
>> - to acquire or obtain access to the entity
>>
>> interpret / analyze / synthesize:
>> - to convert entities to another format
>> - to merge selected entities with local data
>> - to reason about selected entities
>> - to enrich existing entities with more data
>> - to identify an entity
>> - to contextualise the entities by connecting them with other entities
>>
>> present / publish:
>> - to create or update entities
>> - to annotate, comment information
>> - to visualize entities and their relations
>> - Justify, to document the authority data creator’s reason
>> - to make new entities accessible inside an information system
>> - to provide new data as LOD
>>
>> Furthermore, I'd add "Knowledge bases" under "Non library information
>> systems"
>>
>> Social uses could be a yes/no property, it's quite hard to classify
>> all possible goals of social functionality.
>>
>> Andras
>>
>> Antoine Isaac írta:
>>> Hi Karen,
>>>
>>> That's an interesting view indeed. But maybe it's better to keep it
>>> for us for a later fine-grained analysis of the cases we got, and not
>>> for external use case providers. As you say it, this is really
>>> complex and I think it could prove deterring.
>>>
>>> What would be interesting is to test the current classification at
>>> [1] against yours, to see if we should add another general category
>>> there. To me:
>>> - "discover" overlaps with "Browse / explore / select", "Access /
>>> obtain" and "Retrieve / find"
>>> - "gather" overlaps with "Integrate / contextualize" and "Justify"
>>> - "create" overlaps with "Add information / annotate / comment"
>>>
>>> That leaves with "share" which is not obviously present in the
>>> current state. We could add it, maybe also adding the "cite"
>>> suggested by Monica [2]
>>> though she linked it to "annotate / comment" in her mail.
>>>
>
> I think (to me) the important overarching 'dimension' that needs to be
> crystallised is that the users/systems aren't simply passive consumers
> fo the data (I'm including searching/browsing in the sense of passive
> there) but that they are (potentially) active consumers -
> changing/contributing to that body of knowledge: the user-generated
> content aspect. This can be by adding more instances (where allowed and
> appropriate) or (non-exclusive or!) by contextualising the data -
> commenting, annotating or linking the entities to other things (citing
> could be considered an instance of linking).
>
> I'm not sure if I have explained that very well!



Well, it seems to me that you've explained it well :-)
But isn't http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions reflecting that now? If not, feel free to add stuff there. I guess though an important point it wouldn't change the document structure!

Cheers,

Antoine

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:31:08 UTC