- From: Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:05:32 +0200
- To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: "Emmanuelle Bermes" <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Ok, so i believe in your strong believes :-) and we go for the one4all template...under the circumstances it sounds to me like a adequate decision! > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 13:24 > An: Haffner, Alexander > Cc: Emmanuelle Bermes; public-xg-lld@w3.org > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Use Case template > > Hi Alexander, > > There was no misunderstanding, or maybe not exactly as you picture it :-) You > created a template based on one specific view, and that's very valuable. But the > fact is that it seems also good at capturing a wider range of cases. That's I think > (at least for me) the reason for which no-one suggested an alternative or a > complement template. > > In fact along all these efforts I had in mind the example of SWEO [1] which has > different categories but a same submission form. > I agree with you that in theory the descriptions for use case and case studies > would look more different than at [1]. But we are not asking contributors to spend > hours creating a full use case document or a case study: it should be as easy as > possible for them. At a high-level we can make use of the same sections, I strongly > believe. > > Further, in terms of timing it would be quite counter-productive to devote more > time to a new template. It would confuse contributors, and I'm not expecting that > the number of submissions would be so high--the gain of curation time would be > not very significant. Especially since I'm convinced we need to spend significant > time to analyze these cases anyway, if we want to make most of them to feed our > other efforts! > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ > > > > Hi Antoine, > > you are completely right we designed a template for use cases not for case > studies - apparently this was a misunderstanding... > > Now the question is, can one template really serve use cases and case studies > and furthermore does this approach alleviate work or just confuse creators? > > I suppose a second template only for case studies could support authors in a > more efficient way and as well make it more easy to us derivate global LLD > requirements from the UCs and the CSs. We also have to ask what is more time > intensive, adapting the current template to match UCs and CSs needs or > elaborating a second template only for CSs? We should definitely discuss this. > > Cheers, Alexander > > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] > >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. September 2010 10:22 > >> An: Haffner, Alexander > >> Cc: Emmanuelle Bermes; public-xg-lld@w3.org > >> Betreff: Re: AW: Use Case template > >> > >> Hi Alexander, > >> > >> Well, I think that in many people's mind this has been a gathering of use cases > >> and case studies for quite a while--and in fact this is what the charter say. > Maybe > >> the confusion comes from the fact that though you designed it with use cases > in > >> mind, the template could apply pretty much to both situations. And I don't think > >> that's necessarily bad. We're not asking for pages of description for use cases > or > >> case studies, a very similar grain could apply. I guess that's actually why no > one > >> has objected so far--if you had asked for drawing a use case diagram being a > >> mandatory section, we would have spotted more issues. > >> > >> Would it alleviate everyone's worries to emphasize once more on the fact that > we > >> use one template, but it serves both ends, and still label our call as a "call for > use > >> cases and case studies"? > >> > >> Antoine > >> > >> [1] with the notable exception of the goal section > >> (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Template#Goal) which > >> could have different content. But even then the current explanation in the > template > >> actually is not precise enough to rule out case studies, as was demonstrated > by > >> Karen's "case". And I believe this is ok! > >> > >> > >> > >>> 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_Libra > >> ry_Data&oldid=565 > >>> > >> > <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Use_Case_Open_Libr > >> ary_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> > >>> > >>> <mailto: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> > >>> <mailto:a.haffner@d-nb.de<mailto:a.haffner@d-nb.de>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.d-nb.de > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ===== > >>> Emmanuelle Bermčs - http://www.bnf.fr > >>> Manue - http://www.figoblog.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ===== > >>> Emmanuelle Bermčs - http://www.bnf.fr > >>> Manue - http://www.figoblog.org > >>> > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 13:06:07 UTC