Re: dwbp-ACTION-130: Review issues around ucr and contact individual use case authors to review them in the light of current issues and create relevant actions

Hi Deirdre,

I love the way you've set up the RDF - makes it so much clearer when 
everything's in triples. Let me run through my 3 UCs.

2.9 LA Times' Reporting of Ron Galperin's Infographic

Already in place

:LATimes :defines
:R-MetadataStandardized,
:R-UniqueIdentifier, # I think this can be merged
       # with R-PersistentIdentification
:R-Citable,
:R-DataMissingIncomplete .

I'm happy with all those but I would like to add the following existing 
Requirements:

:LATimes :defines
:R-Location,
:R-ProvAvailable,
:R-TrackDataUsage,
:R-MetadataAvailable.

And I think we can usefully derive some new requirements from this use case.

:UriDesign (because the use case says "how could Ron Galperin have 
referred to the source data in the Infographic? (the URI is way too 
long). QR code? Short PURL?")

:Usage (How could the publisher of the data link to the Infographic as a 
visualization of it?)

2.19 Tracking of Data Usage
This whole use case is really around the one requirement it currently 
links to which is R-TrackDataUsage. If the use case can be merged with 
another one that makes the point about tracking as forcefully, then OK. 
The Ordnance Survey case is one where we can quote an individual in a 
citable document.

2.27 Share-PSI 2.0: Uses of Open Data Within Government for Innovation 
and Efficiency

I need to spend more time on this than I have available right now. So 
I'll pick it up in the morning. But I think it likely that this will 
generate some new requirements and strengthen existing ones.



On 01/12/2014 11:12, Lee, Deirdre wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Over the weekend I have been looking at the current use-cases and requirements in the UCR doc. To make it easier for us to analyse, I've created an RDF file with this data, available here: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Use-Cases_Requirements_RDF
>
>
>
> I would ask all use-case authors (I'll email them individually as well) to review their use-case for the requirements that are defined by 3 use-cases or less.
>
> See the table at https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Use-Cases_Requirements_RDF#Requirements_defined_by_number_of_UseCases
>
>
>
> This will reflect the currently open issues. However there are a couple of potential requirements that have been suggested, which use-case authors should also consider, namely:
>
> ·         code-lists,
>
> ·         dataset versioning,
>
> ·         data enrichment.
>
>
>
> There are a couple of use-cases that have no associated requirements. I will contact these authors directly.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: 14 November 2014 14:22
> To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: dwbp-ACTION-130: Review issues around ucr and contact individual use case authors to review them in the light of current issues and create relevant actions
>
>
>
> dwbp-ACTION-130: Review issues around ucr and contact individual use case authors to review them in the light of current issues and create relevant actions
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/130
>
>
>
> Assigned to: Deirdre Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 17:30:53 UTC