I said I would have a think about the F2F goals for the Task Force: It would be good if we could come out of the F2F with greater clarity as to: - whether we will start from the OWL 1.0 docs or start afresh (or both or some subset) - do we have consensus as for whom we are writing? - which documents are intended for which readers? ===== Unfortunately I am not sure that the questions can be asked all that simply. I suggest we use Monday's UFDTF call to concentrate on what questions should we be asking ourselves during the F2F? Some samples - Do we want to have a UCRs doc? - If so is it an evolution of http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/ - Do we want the User facing Documentation to include a short overview such as the OWL 1.1 member submission overview. - If so do we want it as a separate document - Do we want the User facing Documentation to include a longer overview such as http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features - If so do we want it as a separate document - Do we want the User facing Documentation to include a technical but less formal specification such as http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref - If so do we want it as a separate document, or worked in with the more formal specs. - Do we want the User facing Documentation to include a user manual along the lines of http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide - If so do we want it as a separate document - If so does it need substantial rework (e.g. dropping wine ontology, or adding different domain specific ontologies) - Do we want to include domain specific guides - Do we want to link to non-W3C user facing documentation - Do we want to have User Facing Documentation pages in a Wiki that has an active lifetime after the Working Group - How would we maintain such a thing? ==== If we can get a number of questions, I would hope that very short discussions followed by straw polls at the F2F would give us some idea of what the group as a whole, rather than simply the noisy people, would like. ==== Maybe we can get as far as writing up a matrix of readers vs documents and see which readers we are addressing adequately and which we are not. JeremyReceived on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 13:37:25 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT