Re: Frozen version of OWL2 Requirements editor's draft available

Thanks for your feedback.

As said by Evan about the frozen copy [1]:
>  we haven't reached consensus on the exact structure which has resulted in *two*
> Use Cases sections

My proposal in [2] is to emphasize new OWL 2 features requirements
instead of emphasizing UCs by domain, see more specially sections
3-4-5-6. This is a working draft in progress to be improved on
different points.

> While domain applications will be for certain among the leading
> application scenarios for OWL2, new web applications

A first step was done in that direction in [2]:

- Some UCs for web services, linked data, etc. are reported section 3,
related to OWL 2  requirements in the next sections (4-5-6):
Use Case #13 - Web service modelling (Telecom)
Use Case #14 - Managing vocabulary in collaborative environments (Wiki)
Use Case #15 - UML Association Class
Use Case #16 - Database federation

other web applications or other domains use-cases are certainly
welcome to be included, if we get some

- Section 2 is re-focused on  'Applications and Users' rather than UCs
by domains
An option would be to add a description of some leading application
scenarios for OWL2  in that section.

Question: should we re-organize that section by leading scenarios or
Applications rather than by Domains ?

Christine

[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RequirementsDraft

2008/7/28 Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>:
>
> Thanks.
>
> As I compare the OWL use case document [1] and the proposed OWL 2 use
> case document, there is a notable difference. The OWL use cases
> emphasized on applications that are directly web related, e.g., web
> portals. The OWL2  use cases, on the other hand,  have the majority
> from domain applications, e.g., Health care and Life Science.
>
> While domain applications will be for certain among the leading
> application scenarios for OWL2, new web applications that got popular
> after OWL was designed, e.g., Web 2.0, web services, linked data,
> online video, webtop, etc.,  may also need more considerations. I
> believe it will be helpful to invite more use cases from those web
> applications.
>
> The working group might need to come up with a way to attract more use
> case contributions from the web domain (e.g., from .com companies),
> not only by public calls, but also by more targeted contacts and
> advertisements.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-webont-req-20031215
>
> Jie
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> wrote:
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> A frozen copy of the evolving OWL2 Requirements document is now available
>> for
>> review [1] and comment at the upcoming face-to-face meeting.  While there is
>> now
>> quite a bit of content, it is still very much a work in progress.  For
>> example, we still
>> haven't reached consensus on the exact structure which has resulted in two
>> Use Cases
>> sections.  We would appreciate feedback on this and other aspects of the
>> document.
>>
>> -Evan
>>
>> Evan K. Wallace
>> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
>> NIST
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/ED-owl2-requirements-20080722
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 08:30:55 UTC