<ewallace> scribeNick:Elisa_Kendall

<Elisa> scribenick: Elisa

Evan: last week we met and basically talked about how we were going to work on the requirements doc

some people familiarized themselves with the work page Evan created

talked about how to org document - whether by domain, use cases, features added in OWL 1.1

really the entrypoint rather than the organization of ti

Vipul: I started to arrange things in a sort of a table

<vipul> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/TraceabilityMatrix

I've been filling out this table, and the table is just a generalization of that proposed by Michael and Christine

<ewallace> Requirements workspace page: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Requirements_work_space

and just started filling it out, to look across domains

Ian: as I understand it, there was some disagreement as to whether the basic structure should start from OWL 2, or the other way around

Vipul: yes, that is one of the disagreements

I would like to propose that we go from the domain to the new features, but others want to go the other way around

Ian: looking at your features in the new table, there are very few places where OWL 2 doesn't meet the requirements

as it stands, starting from requirements and use cases, using this matrix, you would say that what we needed was OWL 2

if we don't end up with a large number of unsatisfied requirements, it doesn't make that much difference

Vipul: there was a question of scope brought up at the last telecon, looking at requirements that were

relevant for OWL 2

Ian: yes, without that you could go on and on ... without that we might feel obliged to identify all of the features we don't have in the language and then say why not

Vipul: would that be useful

Ian: it could take quite a bit of time, slow us down saying why we didn't include those features

Vipul: yes, I'm focusing on the use cases where we do have those features

Ian: this is really how we started, which led to OWL 1.1 and subsequently morfed into OWL2, so what you've done really reflects the design process

Christine: I am not sure that I understand correctly the end of our discussion last Monday - I understood that we wanted to have a doc composed of 3 parts: use cases, requirements, and design rationale

my thought was that we were going to organize according to the new OWL features, but some people suggested that we should not be redundant or overlapping with the older documents

Bijan said that it should not be redundant with the primer or reference docs, and I agree

<ewallace> Christine's input doc:http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/8/83/TdM-UserReqTF.pdf

but I have been thinking that we should review the document I put online regarding the features, but highlighting based on questions, but focused on requirements and then discussing the features

summarizing - 3 parts, starting with use cases, then requirements stressing rationale and motivation, and 3rd part talking about the design

I didn't have time to finish this, but we might keep this along similar lines ...

reorganizing along the lines of features

<ewallace> She was quoting me

vipul: the syntactic sugar is one of the most useful things introduced - we've been discussing this on email

<pfps> not surprising - there are an infinite number of ways of representing anything

<ewallace> The issue was with describing the feature as syntactic sugar, not the features in that category

Ian: so - from what I understand, you (Vipul) and Christine are not that far apart, so can we hear from someone who disagrees ...

Evan: I just put in what Vipul was clarifying ... my issue last week - I didn't think the way it was organized was particularly user friendly

Ian: so this was mainly editorial

Evan: indeed

Ian: so there will be quite a bit of editorial polishing ... the only thing I wasn't 100% clear about was the third section - so what's in the design section

Christine: I said use cases, requirements, and design

Ian: so what is design?

Christine: to explain the motivation - why these features were implemented, now the -- document is very nice, lots of progress

<vipul> q

if you take a specific feature, and summarize discussion regarding why certain design choices were made

Ian: I can understand now why Bijan was worried about overlap - I would have expected use cases leading to requirements, and then describe how those requirements were satisfied,

rather than potentially unconnected features, such as profiles, were selected

so for example, for the OWL lite profile, there is a requirement for access to databases, and then the solution would be that the OWL lite profile is the subset of the language that allows you to do this

Vipul: the third section should say how the features map to the requirements, but I would like to add something about what is better in OWL 2 over what was in OWL 1

Ian: ok - I can imaging doing something about that, taking care about overlap

Vipul: so take syntactic sugar -- there were lots of ways of saying things in OWL 1, but there are lots of people who don't know very much about logic, so features such as the syntactic sugar are very helpful

Ian: we're all in close enough agreement to produce a document ...

Christine: for the design section, it is not the same if the objective is to map requirements to features, than to say why a feature was designed or accepted

so for example, the easy key example, it is not clear why it might be implemented with DL-safe rules, or functional-inverse functional

for each feature, it is important to say how to use the feature based on the underlying design

<ewallace> Really?

Ian: in this area you are getting close to problems with the primer

what I suggest is that you are close enough to top level design of the structure to try doing a few examples, and then come back to the working group with a draft

if people like what's there you can produce more

Christine: it is too difficult to summarize all of the discussion, and even if there are explanations in the profile and primer documents, it is hard to grasp the underlying reasons for these things

Ian: so pick and example and produce some text - it's difficult to understand what you want to do without seeing something concrete

Christine: this is reasonable, but the 3rd part is difficult, because the information is missing

Ian: so you might choose something that you do understand, so that you can write it

Evan: I think it would be good to build what we can and then say what's missing, what we need help with

Ian: do you think you can go ahead and come up with a draft

Vipul: I have a request from Evan and Peter - it would be nice to beef up the document with examples from telecommunications and manufacturing

Evan: I have some examples from manufacturing, but it will be a little challenging to match them to features of OWL 2

Christine: so who will take a crack at the first draft?

Evan: I could just start building the framework for this, so that you have some places to start filling in the content -- I did talk to Sandro about how we could do this on the wiki

Ian: as soon as you've filled in the framework we can get multiple people working on different sections

<vipul> ACTION: Evan to create first draft of requirements document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Create first draft of requirements document [on Evan Wallace - due 2008-06-16].

Christine: would it be possible for you to draft an example for the design section?

Ian: I'm a little baffled, as you know what you want in the section ...

Let's see what you come up with, and if you have a section that says "we need an explanation of why this does what it does" I can help out if its needed'

Ian: is there anything else that we needed to cover today

Evan: on the quick start - we had some questions about the vocabulary, have we had any discussion with Boris?

We were trying to figure out exactly what parts of the syntax should be part of it, and it wasn't obvious

<pfps> why not look in the document set for the terminals of the language?

we were going to ask to see if he had generated anything with just the terminals, and start working from that

Ian: looking in the document is one way, but if it could be done automatically that would be quicker

Evan: exactly

Ian: Peter is there any way to do that?

Peter: if you want a reasonably recent set, there are indexes in the document that could get you most of the way

Evan: we were just asking if it had been done, not to create work

Ian: it seems like the answer is yes, it has already been done - we just need to find out where this index is and use that

Evan: yes

Ian: can you point us at the index?

Peter: Im getting server errors in the moment, so I can't

you might want to try the primer

Ian: index, owl feature -- there is a list of owl features ... is that the kind of thing you were thinking of?

Peter: I think so,

Ian: so that's a good starting point

<pfps> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Appendix:_OWL_Features

Ian: ok, so anything more on the quick start? we'll hopefully have something to discuss next week?

Elisa: hopefully the first week of July

Ian: anything else we should discuss this week?

Christine: what is the quick start guide supposed to be?

Ian: it's supposed to be like a reference card at the back of a manual that helps refresh your memory on syntax, a card that can sit on your desk rather than a book that would sit on your bookshelf
... if we're not expecting progress on the quick start until the beginning of July, when should we schedule our next meeting?
... realistically, it sounds like you might not have anything until the week of the 7th of July;do we want another meeting between now and then to discuss the use case and requirements document

On the use case and requirements document, do we meet next week or the 30th?

Vipul: it depends on whether or not Evan can get something done by then

Evan: Let's meet on the 30th, and I'll have at least a draft of the structure of the use case document we can discuss

<pfps> documenting the schedule would be useful

meeting adjourned

<ewallace> next meeting will be on 30 June to discuss progress on Requirements

<ewallace> will meet on 7 July to discuss Quickstart

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: Elisa_Kendall
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Elisa_Kendall> ...
Found ScribeNick: Elisa
Inferring Scribes: Elisa_Kendall, Elisa
Scribes: Elisa_Kendall, Elisa
ScribeNicks: Elisa_Kendall, Elisa

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Vipul_Kashyap, Elisa_Kendall, +46.7.41.aabb, Evan_Wallace, Christine, Peter_Patel-Schneider, IanH
Present: Vipul_Kashyap Elisa_Kendall +46.7.41.aabb Evan_Wallace Christine Peter_Patel-Schneider IanH

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 09 Jun 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/09-owl-minutes.html
People with action items: evan

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report