Re: [regrep-semantic] notes on revision of April 19 Use Cases

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Evan,

Did you attach the RTF document?

I could not find anything with your edits in at Kavi.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
To: <regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:03 PM
Subject: [regrep-semantic] 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
>