UFDTF/Minutes.2008.01.28

From OWL
< UFDTF
Revision as of 11:58, 28 January 2008 by Peter Patel-Schneider (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

OWL Working Group Meeting Minutes, 28 January 2008

DRAFT. Currently Under Review

See also: IRC log




(Scribe changed to Peter Patel-Schneider)

Admin

Jonathan Rees: jar = Jonathan Rees of Science Commons. Alan asked me to help out so I'm a WG member. I'm not on the call, just on irc.

Add discussion of Elisa's message to agenda.

Action Review

Both outstanding action items completed.

Elisa's Action Item

See [1] [2]


Bijan Parsia: "Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)
Bijan Parsia: The most complete overview
Bijan Parsia: "

Elisa Kendall: twice as many overviews as primers in W3C

Scribe Note: I believe that this is the result of searching for "overview" and "primer" in W3C web site.

Bijan Parsia: of what sort?

Elisa Kendall: not necessarily rec track

Elisa Kendall: overview - .....

Elisa Kendall: primer - longer document - some insight - not for experts

Elisa Kendall: quick start guide - pointers, a little bit of stuff - that's it

Elisa Kendall: short is needed


Bijan Parsia: guide goals are - short, entry point

Bijan Parsia: seems to align with Elisa's point

Bijan Parsia: longer guide is not necessary

Bijan Parsia: home page can serve as entry point

Bijan Parsia: inter doc pointers are very useful

Bijan Parsia: multiple documents are their own load


Bijan Parsia: home page can play role of entry point

Alan Ruttenberg: Guide = Primer - narrative story

Alan Ruttenberg: missing from Overview - small orientation document, delta from previous

Evan Wallace: I am against that

Alan Ruttenberg: Can we merge reference, syntax, and semantics?

Conrad Bock: I thought Jim H was against that. I am also. The reference is supposed to be easy to use. Having a swtich is effectively different documents.

Alan Ruttenberg: merge reference and syntax - i.e., no separate 'reference'

Conrad Bock: We should distinguish folding from what the user sees.

Bijan Parsia: there is little information hiding needed - only reorganizaion

Conrad Bock: Folding effectively produces separate documents, which is more what I'd like to see.
Alan Ruttenberg: chat by talking, not in irc, please
Alan Ruttenberg: q?
Alan Ruttenberg: ack alanr_
Alan Ruttenberg: elisa suggesting "fold out" as overview. More than links to document. Summary of features of the language

it would be nice to have Elisa's methodology on overview vs primer in the minutes

Elisa Kendall: overview = "fold out" document

Bijan Parsia: What?
Alan Ruttenberg: will ask

Elisa Kendall: guide has to have a story


Elisa Kendall: issues with wine as an example ontology

Elisa Kendall: also guidance on how to do things

Peter Patel-Schneider: primer has a story

Elisa Kendall: guide also has an application - gives people a feeling of how to use an ontology

Elisa Kendall: Some code and suggestions to run themselves as addition to primer [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]


Primer

Bijan Parsia: Detailed comments not necessarily useful here, as this is first draft [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]

Bijan Parsia: not interested (right now) in detailed comments

Bijan Parsia: Proposes that overview and guide can be covered by this document [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]

Bijan Parsia: primer is first draft

Bijan Parsia: primer is supposed to cover overview and guide

Bijan Parsia: To the degree that it can cover both overview/guide would like to hear people's comments [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Peter Patel-Schneider: Direction should be clear. Better direction than guide+overview of old [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]
Bijan Parsia: +1 to introduction

Evan Wallace: I like primer - it is an introduction

Evan Wallace: Primer is an "introduction" [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]

Evan Wallace: fundamental tension between overview and guide - can there be one document

Evan Wallace: we may not need a long guide

Evan Wallace: ... what do we want to accomplish with UFD?

Evan Wallace: I would go for reference and introduction

Evan Wallace: also use cases - but this is not necessarily UF

Bijan Parsia: I want to 1) not turn people off OWL, 2) pull people into OWL, 3) leave them unconfused on key point, 4) help them to make sound decisions

Evan Wallace: Primer is better introduction than Overview + Guide

Alan Ruttenberg: to meet charter we need to show that our documents meet the goals

Bijan Parsia: what is needed - better replacements for old docs or meeting the deliverables

Conrad Bock: want intro & reference

Conrad Bock: also want guide

Conrad Bock: upgrading existing makes more sense

Conrad Bock: want to draw in software community into OWL - so emphasize differences

Bijan Parsia: +1 to pulling in software folks and making them understand how OWL is different

Conrad Bock: guide is longer (and reference is also)

Alan Ruttenberg: primer is a slightly longer document

Bijan Parsia: length per se is not the goal

Deborah McGuinness: possibly consider comprehensive as a replacement for longer

Conrad Bock: different readers - "executives", ... - need different levels of explanation

Bijan Parsia: what about comprehensiveness

Deborah McGuinness: users search in guide for constructors

Bijan Parsia: users use guide as reference?

Alan Ruttenberg: +1 - sounds like deb description is reference

Bijan Parsia: if reference was better organized then it might serve the same purpose

Deborah McGuinness: users use guide as [cookbook] when they can't hack the references

Deborah McGuinness: that's why I agree that there is a tension between overview and guide

Deborah McGuinness: I thought that primer would be comprehensive for constructors

Bijan Parsia: +1

Alan Ruttenberg: comprehensiveness in tension with narrative?

Ian Horrocks: only 10 minutes left ...................................................................

Ian Horrocks: did Deborah say that Primer could replace Guide

Deborah McGuinness: if it was constructor comprehensive

Ian Horrocks: is there an agreement that Primer could replace Guide?

Deborah McGuinness: yes - but also think about wine agent

Conrad Bock: i didn't use guide

Bijan Parsia: does guide have to be a reference as well?

Bijan Parsia: let's not end up with more documents (in rec track)

Ian Horrocks: That seems reasonable. Where would the primer fit into that?

Peter Patel-Schneider: primer is already almost constructor comprehensive

Deborah McGuinness: can we also separate this as a potential replacement for the overview?

Alan Ruttenberg: Primer can overtake guide if constructor comprehensive

Ian Horrocks: can try

PROPOSED: primer could become a replacement for the guide modulo a few concerns

Bijan Parsia: +1
Proposal+ (guest): Going primer does not yet settle exclusive authorship/editorship [Scribe assist by Alan Ruttenberg]

Alan Ruttenberg: hang on please

Bijan Parsia: +1
Evan Wallace: +1
Ian Horrocks: +1
Deborah McGuinness: with the agreement that we are only discussing the guide (and not the overview) +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1
Alan Ruttenberg: +1
Conrad Bock: 0