Re: Use Case Report -- first pass at a review

Hi Jodi,

Thank you very much for your comments, I will be working tomorrow on the
report.

Regarding asking the cluster authors, I have already sent emails to:

- Gordon and Karen: Gordon answered and we agreed that I will extract the
use cases of their cluster as they are very busy with other sections of the
report. I will write them down tomorrow.

- You and Uldis: I sent an email the 8th of June with the subject "Extracted
use cases Social and new uses cluster" but I did not get any response, maybe
you did not receive it correctly?

Cheers,

Daniel


2011/6/20 Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>

> Hi Daniel & all,
>
> This is the first pass at a review of the Use Case Report
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport
>
> I have made some wording and phrasing changes; see the diff for more
> explanation:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=UseCaseReport&diff=5101&oldid=5042
> I have not yet carefully reviewed the individual Use Case summaries since
> those are still in progress.
>
> Have you asked for what you need from Cluster authors? I see that some
> parts are still pending based on missing information from the Collections &
> Social and new uses clusters.
>
> More detailed comments below. Please ping me as a reminder when this is
> ready for a second review!
>
> -Jodi
>
> Introduction, Sections 1-3
> The use of capitalized phrases in this paragraph isn't very clear:
>
> The use cases presented in this report demonstrate the need for Linked Data
> technologies in order to DESCRIBE library resources and their context, and
> SHARE these descriptions among institutions and with the broader public. The
> issue of description mainly involves the creation or representation of
> RELATIONSHIPS between resources, by MAPping similar entities, making
> existing relationships more explicit, and creating new relations, either
> using machine processing (inferences, alignments, etc.) or manually
> (tagging, cataloguing). Those relationships can be used to provide
> DISCOVERy, through BROWSE and SEARCH services, and to FEDERATE or AGGREGATE
> many sources. They are also involved in data MANAGEment issues.  Linked Data
> technologies are used to improve global interoperability of library data, by
> RE-USing metadata elements sets and value vocabularies, providing URIs for
> resources, and developing PUBLISHing services like APIs.
>
> I don't think this paragraph is needed:
> The process followed by the group was to first collect the different use
> cases and case studies and then review them and extract the main scenarios.
> However, this document presents the extracted use cases first (section 4)
> and then offers short summaries for each individual use case (section 5).
> The rationale behind this structure is to give the reader an overall view on
> the main topics and scenarios involved in the different use cases clusters,
> before presenting each single case in more detail.
>
> However, I think it would be useful to include a sentence or two here
> saying that each cluster has a page (which is linked), and that authors for
> each cluster are listed. It may also be useful to add a layer of navigation,
> perhaps by numbering the clusters and using the list of 8 clusters as a sort
> of table of contents for the remainder of the report.
>
> ==
> Section 4.1 Bibliographic data
> Some of these may have a processor role which isn't mentioned, e.g.
> Integrated metadata search interfaces across several providers
> The end-user searches metadata for all resources in a consortium using a
> single, integrated interface, and identifies all available copies of a
> resource, including the nearest to a specified location.
>
>
> Are these three different scenarios, just under the same heading since
> they're related? If so, make that more clear.
> Information aggregationThe end-user refines results of a search, and
> expands it to include related resources from external collections at
> web-scale. The processor identifies recently-published bibliographic
> resources for dissemination in a current awareness service. The end-user
> obtains access to an online full-text version of a resource via a link from
> the bibliographic record for the resource.
> ====
> Section 4.2 Authority data
>
> The case study-style examples are nice, but abbreviated versions might be
> as informative.
>
> ====
> Section 4.3 Vocabulary alignment
>
> It's a little confusing that there are two separate classifications here --
> 4 "general applications" and 3 "categories of use". An introductory sentence
> explaining that would help.
>
> "The four "general applications" for vocabulary alignment data (as
> elaborated in [2])" -- what is [2]?
>
>
> ====
> Section 4.4 Archives and heterogeneous data
>
> So far this is my favorite; the examples are specific and clearly
> described. There's not too much text about any one.
>
> ====
> Section 4.5 Citations
>
> These examples are also brief and clear.
>
> These two paragraphs can be removed, right?
> In this section, we list use cases in a very narrow sense that were
> extracted from the above mentioned scenarios or made up additionally. A use
> case in this narrow sense means a specific action that an end-user might
> want to perform that includes the citation data as we have defined it here.
> The purpose of such use cases typically includes the extraction of
> requirements that then can be fulfilled by the underlying implementation. In
> turn these use cases also provide a rationale for each requirement and
> explain, why this requirement is needed. To illustrate this, we added a
> notion of some requirements in italics.
>
> ====
> Section 4.6 Digital Objects
>
> Are the 'Users' here equivalent to the 'End-users' of 4.1?
>
> "should be" could be removed -- and replaced with actions. e.g. "Enable
> end-users to...". That would emphasize the action rather than the User.
>
> ====
> Section 4.7 Collections
>
> "No defined in cluster page" -- does this require further action from
> Gordon and Karen?
>
> ====
> Section 4.8 Social and new uses
>
> (waiting for further action from me & Uldis)
>
> ====
>
>
> Overall:
> -consider capitalization (e.g. Web or web, semantic web or Semantic Web,
> ...)
> - consider adding a sentence describing the overall scenario (e.g.
> "Bibliographic data is data about library materials, including books, audio
> materials, ...")
> - author names should be given in full. Who wrote archives, digital
> objects, authority data, vocalign?
> - You should be listed as overall author of this deliverable.
> - Consider using sentence case for section headings. In any case, be
> consistent.
> - Consider renaming "Extracted Use Cases" -- this seems, to me, like a
> summary of the clusters
> - One disadvantage of the current structure (which I like overall) is that
> the clusters have to be mentioned in two separate places.
>