W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

FW: Invitation to Present and coordinate with OWL WG Task Force on User Facing Documents

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:44:03 -0500
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D1240180CCDF@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Christine's response


From: Christine Golbreich [mailto:Christine.Golbreich@uvsq.fr] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:39 PM
To: Kashyap, Vipul; jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; Ian Horrocks
Subject: Re: Invitation to Present and coordinate with OWL WG Task Force on User
Facing Documents

Hi Vipul, Jeremy and all,

First please excuse-me for the delay of my answer.
Find below my comments from outside and at the same time answers to some
questions of Jeremy's email (in the public OWL WG Archive
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com
l.hp.com> >
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:36:51 +0000
Message-ID: <474D6EF3.7060905@hpl.hp.com
F3.7060905@hpl.hp.com> >
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" 
-owl-wg@w3.org> >), if it  might be of any help in your discussions.

These ones are my *personal* comments from my own experiment, when initially
faced to the OWL1.0 documentation. They also reflect the impressions I got
next from several discussions with LS or industry users, and OWLED TF members.
They don't pretend in anyway to be representative of a rigourous 
investigation by users !

- As already said a UCRs doc such as http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/
seems useless at this point and not helpful for users.
- IMO the 2 most useful W3C documents for OWL 1.0 were
.org/TR/owl-ref>  and http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/
OWL ref being the most useful, though not enough for ordinary users (such as
LS), and not really the guide itself but mainly its examples.
I am inclined to note that the most understandable/successful doc for 
promoting understanding and use of OWL was not the W3C OWL guide 
but the Pizza Protégé  tutorial.  Such a user tutorial / tool manual with 
concrete simple examples is really appreciated and required.
- I am not convinced to have domain specific guides.
I would rather suggest to include illustrating examples from several
different domains for a single notion, within another  OWL1.1 document (e.g.
overview ? to be defined)
- I am not inclined to vote for a longer overview in the style of
I would rather suggest a mixture between an Overview Reference doc
introducing new OWL1.1 features,  (in addition to a strict reference doc) 
including many illustrative examples, and pointing to UCs and Requirements, 
when available/possible

In fact, I started to work on such a draft a while ago collecting examples 
and UCs for the OWLED User TF report.
This draft under progress (about 13-14 pages) attempts at shortly informally
the new features of OWL 1.1 (based/inspired on existing specs def)  while giving
examples  and links to Use Cases from OWLED or other literature motivating 
these extensions.

However, I must say that it's hard work for several possible reasons:
perhaps especially since the OWLED is not an official activity like the W3C 
User facing Documentation TF
because of some overlap with that TF
because users from industry and LS do not consider this as their priority.
because they often do not have use cases of OWL1.1 already available , at 
best they have only requirements of simple features (e.g. QCR)
Once more, despite increasing spreading of OWL, this demonstrates the huge 
gap between theory and real applications and users (sorry!).

On the other hand I have got UCs and Requirements from nearly all 
the TF members, but some of them have (IMO) a limited interest, 
other ones are still in progress.
Several (advanced) users promised to send me examples and UCs.
I was / am still waiting answers to provide you with more detailed 
I must say that it's also very hard and a little discouraging to follow the WG
I wonder whether it makes sense to continue to devote time and energy 
on our draft and in the OWLED TF activity independently without interaction with
the WG.
----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Kashyap, Vipul <mailto:VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>  
	To: Christine Golbreich <mailto:Christine.Golbreich@uvsq.fr>  
	Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com ; Alan Ruttenberg <mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
; Ian Horrocks <mailto:ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>  ; Kashyap, Vipul
	Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:35 PM
	Subject: RE: Invitation to Present and coordinate with OWL WG Task Force
on User Facing Documents

	The questions raised by you are all very relevant.
	We have not reached consensus around these questions and the purpose of
this e-mail is to 
	check for interest and willingness for coordination and to understand
expectations for
	attribution in the various W3C documents we might end up producing.

		For the moment it's unclear what material you would be
interested to "reuse" and what would be appropriate for what document.
		First, is it already decided what type of document the UFDTF is
aiming at or is still on discussion ? 
		Is it necessarly a document of the same type as the past ones:
Overview / Guide /UC & Requirements / Tutorial  
<http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/#specs>  )?
		not necessarily, though some of it may be similar. In general,
we are trying to see if we need to come up with domain specific UCRs which
		would be more understandable to users in their domains.
		I am personaly not sure whether or why a UC & Requirements
document like the OWL past document would still be useful for *OWL1.1.*
		The jury is out on this issue. 
		In contrast, examples extracted from real applications or
requirements or/and references of  UC & Requirements integrated to an Overview
might perhaps be more helpful, mainly for "pedagogical" reasons. 
		[VK] This is what we are thinking of, but organized around
domain specific areas. Most probably this would be a different document from the
		 But this requires *some work and elaboration*. I have already
started some draft in that direction for our TF report, but it still in
		(BTW I am looking for your and Alan's promised  UCs ).
		[VK]  This is where IMHO, coordination would make sense.
		As far as my UC is concerned, please take a look at
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/ClinicalObservationsInteroperability and look at
the Patient
		Recruitment use case document. Let me know if that is what you
would need.
		As already suggested, I think it would be perhaps more efficient
to join our efforts to elaborate documents in collaboration than to work in
		Besides, as our work and documents are still in progress, if we
had closer interaction and better coordination, we may certainly make a more
useful work.
		I don't know whether the fact that several of us are not  "W3C"
prevents from collaborating on the documents.
		As per Ivan, it doesn't prevent us from "coordinating" and this
is where the issue of attribution becomes crucial.
		In this context, we would like you and/or Michel to present the
work done on UCRs in the OWLED Task Force.
		Look forward to hearing from you.

	The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended
	for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
	and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
	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 Thursday, 6 December 2007 17:44:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:41 UTC