Socialig/Use Case TF/2014-09-30
Arnaud Le Hors, Ed Krebs, Larry Hawes, James Snell, Mark Crawford, Lloyd Fassett
Ann Bassetti, Adam Boyet
Larry: gave brief Intro as to the purpose of the TF
Mark: gave background on immediate need for use case(s) around social syntax to meet the needs of the Social WG
Ed: asked a question about are the use cases focused on cross systems or within systems?
Mark: need for use by social architecture so need breadth and depth to support that. Will need to look at both pure social as well as social interfaces with non-social systems
Ed Krebs: gave example of starting with business then drilling down into social. Does that resonate? Does it make sense for allowing social systems to play together?
Larry: seems consistent with workshop and cloud standards paper.
Ed: if we look federated profiles, it has both social interactions as well as the objects that are around.
James: more in the detail of what data we want to capture for aspects of social. We need more than activities? e.g. Profiles, etc.
Mark: Members should look at the wiki.
James: What we need most, for a social business platform what are the key object types? How do we get that information? How do we know what to request?
James: the problem statement – many different products each use their own view of the profile and currently we must build adapters for each of these different profile types. What would be ideal would be a single profile model. What would that profile model be? What would the data exchange format be?
Larry: definitions of the various syntax meanings?
Ed: perhaps we should look at the social headlights report (focused on capabilities) to see if we can reuse it for use cases.
Mark: social headlights report link is on the architecture wiki.
Ed: good starting point for the architecture as well. Do we want to help define the notion that we need real consistency and what is needed for standard and what can be less standard. Question around what an organization feels comfortable about exposing about their employees and what not.
Arnaud: I think the TF was created the need of the WG. Should create small set of use cases that specific to what is in scope of the WG in his charter. Is there work that can be captured.
Mark: there are two functions for the TF 1) immediate use case(s) for Social Data Syntax and 2) Broader Social Use Case Report
Ed: We are expanding our thinking to see what fits and what doesn’t and then come back to the more immediate tasking for syntax.
Larry: should we look at the 2005 report to see what we can reuse?
Ed: good think to start from but we need to do gap analysis.
Larry: I am willing to take a detailed look at that work and see what we can use and what gaps.
Larry: maybe everyone should identify some scenarios (just lists of scenarios) in preparation for next meeting
Ed: likes scenario based as starting point.
Lloyd: who controls the data? Interaction with non-social systems: who controls the rights to access that data? Perhaps two ways to segment use cases 1) interact with data and 2) interact with people
Larry: we may have to have multiple ways of segmenting the use cases, and that would be one way
Larry: Action Item: I will set up sub page off of wiki for submission of scenarios around profiles that we could then join up into one or two use cases that we could move forward on.
Mark: should we leverage the collection of brief scenarios that has been developed by the WG?
Arnaud: whoever assumes responsibility for editing the page should do this.
Ed: Action Item: I will take a look at the Social WG stuff and move it over
Larry: Action Item: I will look at the 2005 stuff and see what we can reuse and what gaps might exist
Larry: can we meet this time or some other time?
Lloyd: might be problematic
General discussion around when to meet. Agreed to have Larry set up poll to focus on when to meet over next several weeks to ensure we have one or more syntax use cases around profile to pass to the WG.
Larry: Asked that everyone please put their scenarios up by the end of this week?