Re: [regrep-semantic] Compiling use case document

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Jeff Pollock wrote:

>SCM Team-
>
>Here is a cut at two new use cases roughly partitioned into Abox vs.
>Tbox semantic queries. Both are specializations of the existing Use Case
>#6. The two new use cases (#11 & #12) are not mutually exclusive.
>
>I need to take some more time to articulate examples for both, but I
>wanted to give you all a slice-of-time version.
>  
>
Jeff,

Thanks for taking the time to contribute use cases (#11 & #12). Based on 
a quick read I can intutively grasp the value of use case #12 but I am 
having a little trouble seeing an example where #11 could be put to work.

I will look forward to your examples to add additional clarity to the 
new use cases. I hope you will be able to make next week's SC meeting 
where we can  discuss these interactively.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh


>Best,
>
>-Jeff- 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov] 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:41 AM
>To: regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] Compiling use case document
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Is there still interest in getting in some more traditional use cases 
>>(vs. what I sent out before) for reasoning in the document?
>>
>>I had fruitful discussions with some Web Services reps that I may be 
>>able to reflect in new use cases.
>>
>>Tuesday COB (PDT) works for me as well.
>>
>>-Jeff-
>>    
>>
>
>I'd say go for it.  Someone can do a merge of content later.
>
>-Evan
>
>
>
>  
>