UFDTF/Minutes/15Nov07

From OWL
< UFDTF
Revision as of 08:17, 26 November 2007 by RinkeHoekstra (Talk | contribs)

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

UDFTF Minutes 16th Nov 2007

irc log

draft agenda

Admin

Roll Call: Conrad, Vipul_Kashyap, JeremyCarroll, MartinD (muted), DebMcG, pfps, Alan, Evan, Elisa

regrets Bijan and Jim

Previous minutes approved.

goals/styles/audiences

Objective of item was sharing point of view, and not to make any decisions today.

The minute tries to give flavour of discussion.

Vipul took the hotseat, and described his take on these questions.

Vipul
The goal is to increase acceptance and adoption of standard.
Present the spec to enhance proabablity of use.
I agree with Evan's e-mail.
Content providers drive use cases, so start with UCR.
Tool vendors build tools around content.
Important to present to users examples in their own domain.
A specific example to do with fractures was presented (scribe didn't understand it).
Alan
A distinguishing feature of OWL is not only what you can describe, but the possible inferences from the description.
Deborah
See the OWL 1.0 Overview for example of this (language feature; sentence about what it describes; sentence about possible inferences).
Conrad
It is important to community to have approved W3C informative docs.
Peter
On Bijan's behalf, if we have too many ufds we will be rushing off in too many directions.
There is large utility in having a single tutorial domain across all user-facing document.


overview

Discusion concerning OWL 1.0 Overview vs OWL 1.1 Overview

Alan
Which audience is the Overview aimed at?
Vipul
are OWL 1.1 overview readers knowledgeable about OWL 1.0?
unknown
maybe, maybe not.
Martin
separate the two = "owl 1.0 diff" vs. "(motivation for using) owl (1.1)"
Alan
OWL 1.1 overview seems to be for someone who knows about OWL 1.0.
See text on metamodelling.
Peter
I disagree - text is targetted at people who know something, but maybe not much, about OWL 1.0.
peter and alan
discussed difficulties in presented punning.
Deborah
Goal of OWL 1.0 Overview, was an entry point, and then to hand off to the other UFDs (e.g. Guide).
I got a lot of positive feedback on OWL 1.0 Overview.
Alan
It seems to presuppose KR experience.
(To DMcG) Who would you see as the audience for Overview
Deborah
For new overview, one example person would be a manager who has used OWL 1.0, and is considering using OWL 1.1 in future project.
Another, non-power users of OWL 1.0 who want some idea of OWL 1.1
Another, someone who knows little about OWL but has been referred to OWL, by their manager say.
Alan
A bioinformatics techie would find OWL 1.0 Overview difficult.
Thinking in OWL is foreign for some such people.
Peter
These people are best served by a domain-specific introduction;
... scribe got a bit lost.

We informally agreed to start page describing target users, see actions 20 to 22.

external contacts

Discussion concerning how to interact with Christine Golbreich, Michel Dumontier.

Outcome was actions 23 - 25.

next meeting

There are a lot of constraints concerning our regular meeting time.

The key issue is the nine hours between Elisa and Deborah on the one hand and Peter (and to a one hour lesser extent Jeremy, Bijan and Martin) on the other.

This seems to restrict sensible times to a fairly narrow window.

Neither Peter and Jeremy are happy with too many evenings doing WG work.

Conrad, Evan and Elisa already have several meetings on Wednesdays and do not want more.

After some discussion 9am PST Mondays (for 2007) moving to 7am PST in 2008, looked plausible.

No meeting next week.