Re: a few more use cases for completeness

Yes, I am not sure where it primarily falls. It might be a spanning
case, but I also note Jim's follow-on message tentatively placing it
under the Collections use case category. Of course, he too thinks it may
actually not fall too neatly into any one category. 

So I guess my opinion would be: establish the "conceptual search" (sub)
use case under any of the general use case categories as appropriate. So
we may have this thread in a number of the categories.

Thoughts?
Leo

Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> 
> i think conceptual search is in the technical issues that goes across all
> areas - i think leo would be one of the first to agree with me that
> - document/information organization systems need at an absolute minimum
> structured search and preferably conceptual search
> - interoperability applications are greatly enhanced with conceptual search
> (and i would actually claim close to doomed to failure without some kind of
> search that finds "similar" terms)
> -web services i think could get a start with beautifully precise APIs and
> posting of what different services provide but very quickly (i would suggest
> probably alpha version 2 or just after the white board quick and dirty demo)
> need some kind of good search
> 
> as co-chair of the technology requirements area, i was thinking that we would
> include it in our list  but as chair of your group, were you also going to put
> it in yours?
> 
> thx,
> d
> 
> Leo Obrst wrote:
> 
> > A question I have: under which use case is conceptual search? I too had
> > posted this as a use case, but am not sure where it falls.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Leo
> >
> > Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry for the late contribution – I was offline when this was officially
> > > due.
> > >
> > > These are a few use case interests from my research interests and also
> > > from consulting.  References point to some examples of work I or
> > > colleagues have done in these areas.
> > > The last point is work led by McIlraith in our group at Stanford.
> > >
> > > - search – from simple things like structured search like retrieving
> > > tech reports, calendar entries[0], etc.  The search should include both
> > > free text search and utilizing markup information and ontology
> > > definitions.  This moves into conceptual search.  An early example of
> > > simple and more complicated conceptual search using ontologies, markup,
> > > and free text search is FindUR [1-3]
> > > - intelligent interoperable e-commerce.  Use ontologies for all levels
> > > of support including simple things like integrity checks, more
> > > complicated support such as ontology merging and mapping to “standard”
> > > upper level ontologies such as UNSPSC, etc.   Simple early versions of
> > > this include electronic yellow pages such as Directory Westfield.  More
> > > complicated versions of this include real configuration and solutions
> > > across complicated domains.  Early examples of ontology-enhanced
> > > configuration includes work on PROSE/QUESTAR [5].
> > > - Explainable query answering systems using background ontologies and
> > > markup to both answer queries as well as to provide followup questions.
> > > One way of visualizing this might be “ask jeeves done with knowledge
> > > representation” (instead of through a lot of hard coding).
> > > - Personalized assistant.  One example I like is an assistant supporting
> > > the logistics of travel – both making travel reservations and also
> > > integrating that into appropriate systems like my palm pilot, expense
> > > forms, etc.  I have a bit of this in a presentation for ICC2001 (but
> > > Mike Dean’s detailed example is another excellent example of this
> > > issue).
> > > - Web services.  One of the focuses of KSL, Stanford's research over the
> > > last 1.5 years has been the confluence of the Semantic Web and Web
> > > Services -- self-contained Web-accessible programs, and devices,
> > > together with distributed computing architectures.  As with DAML+OIL
> > > (in the guise of DAML-S), we would like to use WOL to create ontologies
> > > of Web Service properties and capabilities.  Such annotations would be
> > > used to automate Web service discovery, Web service invocation and Web
> > > service composition and interoperation. [6]
> > >
> > > [0] http://www.quintillion.com/summit/calendar/
> > > [1]  http://www.research.att.com/~dlm/findur/
> > > [2] http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/iccs00-abstract.html
> > > [3] http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/imia99-abstract.html
> > > [4] http://www.ataclick.com/westfield/
> > > [5] http://www.research.att.com/~dlm/papers/ieee-expert.html
> > > [6] http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/sam/ieee01.pdf
> > >
> > > --
> > >  Deborah L. McGuinness
> > >  Knowledge Systems Laboratory
> > >  Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
> > >  Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
> > >  email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
> > >  URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
> > >  (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)
> > > 801 705 0941
> >
> > --
> > _____________________________________________
> > Dr. Leo Obrst           The MITRE Corporation
> > mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
> > Voice: 703-883-6770     7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
> > Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
> 
> --
>  Deborah L. McGuinness
>  Knowledge Systems Laboratory
>  Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
>  Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
>  email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
>  URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
>  (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705
> 0941

-- 
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst		The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770	7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA

Received on Saturday, 8 December 2001 08:40:48 UTC