November 26th 2007, 12 noon EST, etc.
IRC (sorry I forgot to invoke RRSAgent, this is my copy)
- Rollcall: bijan, Jeremy, Vipul_Kashyap, Evan_Wallace, pfps, carsten, alanr, jhendler, Conrad, Deborah
- Regrets: ElisaKendall
- UFDTF/Minutes/15Nov07 approved.
- Action 26 done
- Next telecon: 3rd December (unless cancelled, regrets Alan and Evan)
Further discussion. Some highlights.
- jim (with deborah +1)
- we have good evidence that previous docs were used
- so we should be maintaining that
- Where is this evidence?
- current documents are the only ones that are there. So of course they are used. Can we do better? Probably yes.
- we should be reasching agreement on users
- it is helpful to understand the audience for the current docs
- we already did that for OWL 1.0, why do we want to know more.
- with several documents, some confusion about which to read.
- Many people who have tried, end up not getting it (e.g. OWA, UNA).
- Too little concerning inferences.
- The old documentation was good for purpose but not the end of the story.
- deborah and jim
- I am not arging against other new things, but suggesting maintenance of the existing documents
- overview's pattern of briefness on each constructor was good and should be maintained.
- I think the good points should be maintained, not clear whether that means the current docs are the right form
- I am not so sure that these docs are not heavily used, my experience appears to be different from deb and jim.
- Some things seem to be misleading because of simplifications in OWL Reference
- I agree the documents need to be as correct as we can make them. That doesn't argue to me to get rid of the reference
- I'm just saying there is a cost
- I think there are several different users, but current docs are already useful; let's do clarificarion clean-up etc and update for OWL 1.1 seems good.
- guide and reference overlap
- discuss further at f2f
The lively discussion also contained references to Google page rank of various documents. The data appeared to be disputed.
Who are our readers?
- split RDF and XML hackers since I think they are very different
- we should start with descriptions of readers, and write docs for them to read.
- I do a lot of writing,
- WG docs have huge audience, spending too much time to profile the reader is not very profitable
- (scribe paraphrase) any particular profile will be to specific and miss majpoirty of our audience
- agree that we shouldn't spend too much time on IDing user types
- The current page has two very specific profiles
- we could have OWL for X where X varies, a lot of work.
- We should pull on work from MIchael and Christine
- I write specifics because stuff that is too general is scary.
- My example could be generalized across science
- Let's get new blood on, which means the old people need to share better the valeus of the docs
Christine wants to know more about nature of collaboration, and it is unclear whether they are happy to present.
Action 23 is in progress, but not progressing well.
In IRC discussion between Jim and Bijan they agreed that they were worried about ever-expanding scope of a table.
Also some concern about whether this providing a priviledged position to certain non-WG participants over others.