- From: Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:47:42 +0200
- To: "Emmanuelle Bermes" <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <6DA97EFF2763174B8BDC409CA19729840BF082C5@dbf-ex.AD.DDB.DE>
To be honest, I'm still septic. An use case author who is not a 100% aware about the actor's goal tends to write a case study and NOT a use case. And it shouldn't be our job to rework these case studies into use cases... I know the following idea comes up late (probably too late) but best solution could be a separation of use cases and case studies for the application of LLD. Cheers, alex Von: manue.fig@gmail.com [mailto:manue.fig@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Emmanuelle Bermes Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 09:30 An: Antoine Isaac Cc: Haffner, Alexander; public-xg-lld@w3.org Betreff: Re: Use Case template 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? +1 : the use cases will need curation afterwards anyway. Emmanuelle 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 -- ===== Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 07:48:19 UTC