UDFTF Minutes 16th Nov 2007
Roll Call: Conrad, Vipul_Kashyap, JeremyCarroll, MartinD (muted), DebMcG, pfps, Alan, Evan, Elisa
regrets Bijan and Jim
Previous minutes approved.
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.
- 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).
- A distinguishing feature of OWL is not only what you can describe, but the possible inferences from the description.
- See the OWL 1.0 Overview for example of this (language feature; sentence about what it describes; sentence about possible inferences).
- It is important to community to have approved W3C informative docs.
- 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.
- Which audience is the Overview aimed at?
- are OWL 1.1 overview readers knowledgeable about OWL 1.0?
- maybe, maybe not.
- separate the two = "owl 1.0 diff" vs. "(motivation for using) owl (1.1)"
- OWL 1.1 overview seems to be for someone who knows about OWL 1.0.
- See text on metamodelling.
- 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.
- 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.
- It seems to presuppose KR experience.
- (To DMcG) Who would you see as the audience for Overview
- 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.
- A bioinformatics techie would find OWL 1.0 Overview difficult.
- Thinking in OWL is foreign for some such people.
- 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.
Discussion concerning how to interact with Christine Golbreich, Michel Dumontier.
Outcome was actions 23 - 25.
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.