- From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:39:07 -0400
- To: "Christine Golbreich" <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Thanks Christine for the clarification. On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't aware of that. > other web applications or other domains use-cases are certainly > welcome to be included, if we get some Just for example, in our semantic wiki application, we have the following requirements, which beyond OWL expressivity and is covered by OWL 2: * We need to say that if "Jie isMemberOf TWGroup" and "TWGroup partOf RPI", then "Jie isMemberOf RPI" (role comoposition) * We need to say "Jie doesn't attend meeting x" (negated role instance) * We need to track provenance of changes of the wiki content in a queriable form, thus need rich annotation to axioms or a set of axioms. We might contact communities like semantic wiki, linked data, semantic bookmarking (e.g. Twine) etc., directly for more use cases. > > - 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 ? > To me, organizing by scenarios make more sense. > 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 15:39:43 UTC