Comparison and analysis of W3C UCR documents

Analysis of W3C UCR documents with regard to resource organisation

POWDER: Use Cases and Requirements

https://www.w3.org/TR/powder-use-cases/
Related UCs thematically grouped according to a single common function/task --> similar to tag filter (multidimensional)
Link list to reqs motivated by UC
Similar for requirements, but with different groupings, no further links

https://www.w3.org/TR/csvw-ucr/
Plain listing of UCs, each has own ID as part of title
UCs link to reqs in flow of motivating scenario --> UC text immediately motivates reqs, relation becomes obvious
Requirements grouped primarily by acceptance level (accepted, partially accepted, deferred), explanation given by inline notes
There are few high-level reqs (toc references) internally split up into detailed ones (no toc reference)
Reqs link back to motovating UCs

https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/
No UCs grouping, link list to reqs
Special requirement naming ("R-" prefix) --> easies the identification/search
Req. organisation: Thematic group > Meta-requirement > Sub-requirements
Req. content is very brief and focused, no notes, UC links only --> easies readability

https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/
Document starts with informative user stories
"Statements about system requirements written from a user or application perspective"
Provide the overall rationale and describe the usage context
UCs are more fine grained and focused on system’s behavior (i.e. particular application of the standard in question)
Supports the requirement definition by specification of a primary and alternative scenarios
DXWG UCs mix both perspectives
Reqs grouped as functional vs. non-functional
Req. names are cryptic IDs, no labels
Reqs not structured at all, one-liners with a link to a single motivating UC