W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: WebOnt use-case discussion format, FYI

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:53:30 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808028A2F75@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>

Dan,

Not having been involved on WebOnt, I can only guess, but the community from
which WebOnt members came, has, at its core, a set of people who had a
common language and understanding (not necessary agreement!) from previous
work.  The community from which DAWG members is more diverse.

Now we are moving to a working draft, I would expect that we can make rapid
progress as there is something concrete and bounded to comment on.  I would
be inclined to go with the structure that the editor already has, although
adding the "Goals" section could be useful, but not to delay a published
draft.

I read the goals section of the WebOnt document as stating good principles
(and clarification with repesect to RDFS) which can be hard to pin down in a
single use case, but things that have emerged from practice.  For DAWG, that
is not so much specific query/protocol items as general design - som eis
already captured in our requirments (e.g. "Queries expressible in a syntax
that is easily read and written by people.")

In section 2, it says:
[[[
The requirements were chosen based on the aspects of the use cases that the
working group considered most important, while considering the scope of the
OWL charter and other design constraints. As such, one should not assume
that OWL will directly support every aspect of the use cases.
]]]
and the last sentence makes a good point.  The work we do enables, not
completely solves, the usecases.

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> Date: 26 April 2004 23:28
> 
> I was asking Jim Hendler why it seemed like the WebOnt use cases
> were so much easier to put together (do we just suppress
> upleasant memories, or what?) and he reminded me of a format
> that seemed to help. I just managed to look it up:
> 
> use-case format Guus Schreiber (Friday, 30 November)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Nov/0154.html
> 
> We might be past brainstorming stage where that
> structure is most useful; it wasn't carried thru to the
> eventual publication of the requirements document
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webont-req-20040210/
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2004 05:55:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT