[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] notes on revision of April 19 Use Cases
Evan : Thanks for doing the editing thus far ... it would be great if you could do a draft of the overview explaining how each use case fits into the overall picture. All: For our next meeting - please review Evan's comments and agree / disagree with the edits and comments, such as .. - use case 5 has correct focus (possibly referencing use case 9) - use case 6 needs to incorporate Jeff's query type specific structures cheers carl <quote who="ewallace@cme.nist.gov"> > > 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 > -- Carl Mattocks co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC CEO CHECKMi v/f (usa) 908 322 8715 www.CHECKMi.com Semantically Smart Compendiums (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]