Re: use cases: pls elaborate portal use case a bit, etc.

Dan,

Good editing suggestions. We'll add them to our list of changes.

You bring up the point of many use cases having requirements listed with
them, including "requirements" that the working group didn't approve.
This is an unfortunate side-effect of not having enough time to edit the
use cases before the document was due. We will go through the use cases
and straighten this out.

ACTION: Remove requirements from the individual use case sections.
Update requirements and objectives to link to any use case that listed
them.

Jeff

Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> The portal use case starts with very good
> motivational stuff, but when it gets to
> the actual connection to an ontology language,
> it seems to sort of go off a cliff...
> 
>   "In order allow more intelligent syndication,
>   web portals can define an ontology for the community.
>   This ontology can provide an expressive terminology
>   for describing content, and inferences sanctioned
>   by the ontology can be used to improve the quality
>   of search on the portal. "
> 
> "inferences sactioned" is likely to be greek
> to much of our audience. I suggest elaborating
> the example:
> 
>   This ontology can include knowledge about the
>   topic of the portal such as "academic
>   papers are written by one or more authors,
>   which are people; people have surnames
>   and given names and affiliations, which
>   are organizations" and so on. These
>   rules might say that the surname, given name,
>   and name of affiliated organization is
>   sufficient to unambiguously identify
>   a person in the community. That is the
>   sort of inference that an ontology can
>   enable.
> 
> The 2.2 Image Collections is nicely concrete.
> 
> Just an editorial suggestion:
> use a list for the First/Second/Third
> stuff. Web readers don't read; they scan.
> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html
> 
> regarding "2.3 Corporate Web Site Management"
> 
> it says "The requirements for this ontology are: ..."
> 
> I'd expect those bullets to link to
> stuff in the requirements section.
> 
> But... we decided against making
> "Part-whole relations" a requirement, no?
> Similarly for preconditions.
> 
> Hmm... I see the "requiremtns for this
> [use case] are..." under 2.4 Design Documentation
> and 2.5 Intelligent Agents too. Again,
> without links to the requirements section.
> 
> The Constraints stuff... did we agree that's
> a requirement? some of it was, some of it
> wasn't, as I recall.
> 
>   Web Ontology Requirements
>   W3C Working Draft Feb 7, 2002 1:30 pm
>   http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/owl/
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2002 16:04:24 UTC