- From: Matola, Tod <matolat@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:34:14 -0400
- To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
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 -- ''You begin saving the world by saving one man at a time; all else is grandiose romanticism or politics.'' Charles Bukowski
Received on Monday, 28 June 2010 10:43:42 UTC