use case evolution - process question

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I have a procedural question related to use case development. Namely,
that good use cases evolve over time involving several iterations,
each iteration adding more detail. I don't see how we can be sure a
web ontology language will be covering unless the use cases show
sufficient detail. Does our schedule allow opportunity for use case
evolution? Shouldn't use case development happen in parallel with
language design - i.e. they both evolve together?

I'm happy to continue developing and evolving the use cases I've
presented already. I plan to add more. I'm less comfortable trying to
develop and flesh out use cases for which I'm not a domain expert.

As one of the "new to DAML" people Lynn Stein characterized, I stand
to learn new insights from someone who is more familiar. It wasn't
clear from the telecon if there will be use-case subteams formed. If
there are, I propose each team have at least one DAML expert
available to help fill terminology & conceptual gaps.(maybe this is
obvious?)

I anticipate we'll want to follow some guidelines for transforming
use cases into abstract requirements for the language. Given the
intention of WOWG is to leverage DAML+OIL, I would expect there is an
existing body of knowledge regarding the abstract requirements that
motivated DAML+OILs current state. In what form might these
requirements be currently? Is there a requirements formulation task,
in addition to use case analysis, that involves capturing these
requirements?

Regards,
Ned

Ned M. Smith
Intel Architecture Labs          Phone: 503.264.2692
2111 N.E. 25th Ave               Fax: 503.264.6225
Hillsoboro OR. 97124            mailto:ned.smith@intel.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.3

iQA/AwUBPAbLoxdTablCCzU/EQKdNwCfZvdTkeYKybV35K1nqPWvo60JqZwAoLBw
/s5eUf3hG+THMBybuPlGN3Pi
=vul7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 18:58:34 UTC