- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:13:11 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <F38BC7EF-D4D0-457B-8516-7D8074987CAF@cs.rpi.edu>
On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu> > Subject: UFDTF - who are we writing for > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:00:52 -0500 > > [...] > >> ANSWER 1: Someone like me wants a reference manual >> OK, Bijan argued that since users will mainly use OWL through >> tools, they didn't really need to know most of this. Ok, maybe, but >> suppose I got to a SWOOP or Protege for OWL1.1 and create a new >> property - I get a menu asking me what kind of property it is. One >> of my choices is >> owl11:irreflexive property. > > This doesn't sound very likely. In Protege 4.0, for example, the tab > for creating an object property is called "Object Properties" and the > options under it include "Irreflexive". ok, that just makes it harder - I need to search the documents without knowing what it is actually called... point is, I need to know what OWL means by a term like inversefunctional or irreflexive or the like > > My take on this is that a Protege user isn't going to get much out of > the OWL 1.0 Overview or Guide or Reference, because these > documents talk a > different language. yet, strangely, many of the students I've worked with in professional courses have read the Guide or Ref, decided they were interested in OWL, and then gone to learn Protege. At least some have reported to me that they still refer back to those docs when they are doing their modeling (i.e. figuring out what they want to say) and then figure out how to express it in Protege/OWL however, seems to me that the whole "he said, she said" of who does what is the wrong approach (as I said on the UFDTF telecon) because it seems to me we have a priori evidence that people are linking to and reading these documents, which in my mind argues for their utility without us needing to analyze the users. Note that I would make the same point for S&AS and the new technical documents - I don't ask who the readers of them are, I see value in the fact that they exist and are used. We certainly are not arguing to get rid of them because they cause problems - modulo the updating of S&AS - so I don't see why we are having this stupid argument with respect to the other documents. However, I also don't see why we continue to argue this -- Section 2 of our charter is unambiguous as mandating at least sections, if not whole documents, called requirements, overview, descriptive spec, user guide and test suite -- so if we don't include those, we're not in in compliance and we'll never get to Rec-- maybe we're just arguing about when we will get around to doing it? > > peter "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." - Albert Einstein Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 18:13:29 UTC