W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: [UFDTF] My action to compare documents - a starting point for discussion tomorrow

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:30:31 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D12401E2A877@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Elisa,
 
Thanks for this very comprehensive e-mail. Helps me come up to speed on the
various discussions related to UFDTF and also provides 
a framework for proposing some feedback


	1.  General Observations
	
	It appears from looking at other W3C technologies that there is little
consistency in the set of documents various working groups choose to provide
from a user-facing perspective.
	 
	[VK] I think the above is a very importatnt point and probably needs to
be escalated to Ivan. In general, it would be great if there could be some
coordination, e.g., a common set of use cases and examples across XML Schema,
RDF(S), OWL and RIF.  
	
	I would like to see a new overview (possibly renamed Overview & Quick
Start) that 
	    (1) provides a short description of the purpose of the language, as
in paragraph 1 under *Potential New Overview* in Deb's email of 2007-12-07, and
includes a better document roadmap, since they can get what was in the prior
version simply by looking at the OWL page
	    (2) a new section that provides the high-level description of the
application landscape for the user community. 
	  
	[VK] I am in particular interested in this part. Would propose that the
high level description of the application landscape could characterize various
domains such as HCLS, Earth Science, Software Engineering.
	etc. with some key use cases and examples in each of them?
	 
	    (3) incorporates the content of the OWL 1.1 overview indicating
what's new in this version, but does not send users away by using the technical
DL expressivity language
	    (4) a feature summary that provides the "quick start" guide, perhaps
taking the lead from the structure that was in the original overview and the
outline that Deb and Evan developed (same email - see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0098.html), but that
is very terse and links to appropriate places in the specifications for
additional detail.
	 
	[VK] I reviewed the above document and am not sure if that's the latest
version. Some suggestions here are as follows:
	(A) What appears to be missing in that document is a high level
description of the application landscape for the user cummunity
	(B) In the spirit of coordination with other W3C efforts, I was
wondering if it would make sense to have a small section identifying the 
	     position of OWL vis-a-vis other W3C standards. e.g., XML Schema,
RDF(S) and RIF.
	(C) Also, I was wondering if the various feature description sections
could cross-reference the application landscape which potentially
	could be spec'ed out in the document? 
	
	The audience for this should be end-users of the language, not
necessarily tool builders or DL experts.  I think such a document would add
significant value for our (Sandpiper) users at a minimum, and could provide a
friendly, light-weight introduction that the other documents necessarily lack.
	 
	[VK] I agree with the above point completely. The above is crucial for
increased acceptance and adoption of OWL. There is an impression that OWL is an
escoteric language and we need to dispel
	some "myths" regarding that as well. 
	
	it should be instructional - providing users with insight into how one
might use the language to develop OWL-based applications.
	[VK] Agree with this completely. One suggestion would be also to
identify the advantages/disadvantages of using OWL as opposed to XML Schema,
RDF(S) and RIF in the context of those applications.
	
	I like the idea of using and extending the same example(s) all the way
through, and I like the fact that the original guide described an example
application that people could play with at the end.  I think this is appropriate
for such a document, whether or not we retain the wine example, since some folks
like it alot and others find it culturally problematic.  Chocolate, cheese, or
perhaps olive oil might be nice alternatives, since they are similar in
complexity and structure, and all three have artisan variations we can classify
and say various things about (I was in a shop last week that sells olive oil and
very little else - see http://www.oliviersandco.com/ if you're curious).  We
should definitely include some of the family relationships that are in the new
primer, since they are easy to understand and provide a view on some of the
richness we are adding with the new language features.  This shouldn't be
difficult even if we choose something like olive oil or cheese, since some
families have been making them for generations.
	 
	[VK] Running the same example all the way through is a great idea. And
of course running the same example through the XML Schema, RDF(S) and RIF user
facing documents would be better, but would
	require coordination with the other groups as well. Another suggestion
would be to see if some "application specific examples" could be linked to the
general wine or cheese example, but that might be viewed
	as being out of scope by this group?
	 
	Just my 2 cents.
	 
	Best regards,
	 
	---Vipul


The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only
for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this
information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and
properly dispose of this information.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2008 15:30:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 February 2008 15:30:48 GMT