Re: UFDTF - who are we writing for

Bij - As long as we produce a spec that includes (either inline or as  
separate documents):

Overview:
     An introduction to the new language, including a clear  
explanation of its differences with respect to OWL.
Requirements:
     A description of the goals and requirements that have motivated  
the design of OWL 1.1.
Formal specification:
     A formal specification of the language's syntax and semantics  
(see, e.g., OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax).
Descriptive specification:
     A less formal, but still comprehensive and systematic,  
specification of the language's syntax and semantics (see, e.g., OWL  
Reference).
User guide:
     Educational/outreach material aimed at (potential) users of the  
language (see, e.g., OWL Guide).
Test suite:
     A set of test cases aimed at facilitating software development,  
and at illustrating design features and correct usage (see, e.g., OWL  
Test Cases).
Language Fragments:
     A specification of one or more subsets of the language that have  
been identified as having interesting or useful properties.

then I'm happy (because those are our charter deliverables).  Note  
that I think the more we put in one document, the thicker that  
document gets, and thus the less read, so I tend to argue for  
separate docs, but it's the material I care about.
   -JH






On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> 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.
>

"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