[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: notes on revision of April 19 Use Cases
Notes on V2 use cases: I have made fairly minor revisions to the use cases. Most of the changes were editorial, not significantly changing the content. I turned on change tracking partly into editing use case 1 (sorry). IMHO still more work is needed on this document before releasing it to outside review. One additional change I would like to see would be the inclusion of an overview explaining how each use case fits into the overall picture. For instance the first two represent uses of Semantic Content that could be implemented with current RIM taxonomy support, but would be better served with richer ontology support. Also none of the use case diagrams originally created have been imported into the document (or perhaps that was just a function of the RTF version I was working from). Below are some notes (mostly) created while editing. Use Case 1: Tried to expand most acronyms that wouldn't be obvious to external readers. "STEP" isn't an organization, so I replaced it with the ISO subcommittee that produced the standard. I guessed at other acronyms. David should verify that I got these right. Also not sure what the proper expansion is for EPR. I also took some liberties revising the text to better match its role as an SCM use case. Use Case 2: Changes similar to 1. Use Case 3: The addition of the assumed existence of configuration management policies was the only significant change to this use case. Use Case 4: Added further explanation of the benefit of supporting this use case with RIM. Use Case 5: I am not sure that I understand use case 5. A class in an ontology is not an appropriate analog to an Association. An association (assuming UML-like semantics for association) would map into a property and its inverse, with domains and ranges of those properties restricted to the object classes associated. This is obviously not a very simple mapping and requires something more than an analog to ClassificationNode. This is even worse if the association can specify multiplicities (I have worked up a whole set of rules for this sort of mapping from UML to OWL). This leads me to believe that the having a separate use case for this IS a good idea. I have changed the use case accordingly to match my current understanding. Use Case 6: I am not sure that I understand this one either. Is it going to be replaced by use cases provided by Jeff anyway? It seems to me that there are a number of kinds of content that a semantic query could retrieve: 1) semantic content a) classes or b) instances, 2) schema elements corresponding to semantic a) classes or b) instances, or 3) data elements representing instances of a semantic class. I think that SCM RIM enhancements should support all of these. Use Case 7: This use case is about providing a stronger means of user extensibility of the RIM metamodel, correct? Is it a fair assumption that ontology definitions would exist in this use case for all metaclasses in the RIM? Didn't change this one. Use Case 8: This is now cleaned up a bit. It might be easier to understand if a different query syntax were used. Suggestions are welcome. In any case, it should be updated when 6 is reworked (I think). Use Case 9: I think that the example is a different (and even more interesting - IMHO) case than the overall Use Case seems to be addressing. The relationship between Winter Package and Heated Seats seems to be a hasComponents relationship rather than equivalence. This is one example of why we need a facility as now described in Use Case 5. s -Evan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]