- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:00:54 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 26 Nov 2007, at 17:00, Jim Hendler wrote: > I have taken a long time to answer this question, because I had to > count to 10, and then count to 10 again -- I've now reached > somewhere around 10^^6 and am calm enough for an answer - in fact, > several: > > 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. [snip] I don't believe I've argued this. I have argued that many, if not most, OWL users will use tools, esp. OWL specific editors. These tools will have documentation which reduces the need for a variety of WG produced documentation (and certainly, to be a bit of a broken record, the need for rec track documentation). It's clear that that won't catch all users...but that's a given, right? I think we would do well to 1) have a lightweight introduction (whether separate or not is a different issue) and 2) to make the normative documentation more accessible and 3) to encourage a rich documentation ecosystem that survives and thrives beyond the working group. It's clear that, at least at the W3C, a lot of the proposed activity belongs in SWEO: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/ """The scope of SWEO group includes: the development and collection of use and business cases, stemming from both user and vendor companies, and documenting the value of Semantic Web technologies identifying possible vertical markets and application areas for the Semantic Web production of clear guidelines for tutorials, presentations, teaching materials, FAQ-s, etc, targeted at different audiences""" Sounds like our TF telecon today :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 18:59:24 UTC