RE: less technical documents

Jeremy,

Thanks for bringing this up.
I am attaching with this e-mail a strawman matrix for characterizing the set of
use cases across multiple domains which is when the value becomes clear to the
domain practitioner.

Some initial domains we could consider along with the associated "domain
experts" are:
1. Healthcare/Clinical: Alan Rector, Vipul Kashyap
2. Life Sciences: Alan Ruttenberg, Joanne Luciano, Michel Dumontier
3. Telecommunications: Peter Patel-Schneider, Deborah McGuinness
4. Manufacturing: Conrad Bock, Fabian Neuhaus, Evan Wallace

Of course the issue is that they should be available and have interest in
filling this up. Depending on that this effort may need to be scoped down.

Have also filled up one row each in the healthcare and life sciences tabs of the
worksheets to illustrate the framework.

This was created after brainstorming with Evan and Fabian and it's open for
critique and refinement. It is also inspired by Michel Dumontier's work.

Cheers,

---Vipul

> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: less technical documents
> 
> 
> 
> Several people (maybe: me, Deborah, Vipul, Jim amongst others) appear to
> want an early publication of something other than the three documents
> which we agreed to pursue (Syntax, Semantic, and Mapping).
> 
> If we want such a document(s) to appear on a similar timeline to the
> more technical document (i.e. within the first heartbeat of the WG),
> then we need to put up or shut up.
> 
> Personally, I am hoping to encourage others, rather than to do the work
> myself (my fear is that we are all in the same position).
> 
> ===
> 
> One possible course of action would be to migrate
> 
> http://www.webont.com/owl/1.1/overview.html
> to WD
> 
> with the following changes:
> 
> a) Change title to
>    Overview and Rationale for OWL 1.1
> 
> 
> b) add section
>     Sketch Use Cases
> 
> and largely leave this unpopulated
> 
> c) change verbiage to be more OWL Full friendly
> 
> d) add a table at the end to show which of the new features is motivated
> by which of the use cases.
> 
> The new features as listed in that doc are:
> 
> DisjointUnion,
> NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion
> NegativeDataPropertyAssertion.
> 
> qualified cardinality restrictions
> local reflexivity restrictions
> reflexive,
> irreflexive,
> symmetric,
> asymmetric properties
> disjoint properties
> property chain inclusion axioms
> 
> OWL mechanisms for  user-defined datatypes,
> n-ary datatypes
> 
> punning
>    individual - class
>    individual - property
>    class - property
>    object property - data property
> 
> annotation semantics
> axiom annotations
> 
> I am happy to do this, if there is support. I am not happy to be
> responsible for gathering up enough use cases even in sketch form, or
> for writing the use cases up.  If there is support, I hope Sandro could
> migrate the webont.org doc over first, with whatever magic wand he waved
> for the struture doc.
> 
> I would be happier if someone else, more prepared to own this piece of
> work through to Rec., would step up for it, probably with a totally
> different proposal for their document.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 



The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other 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.