- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:44:42 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I'm unclear what I'm to look at, in general. I current watch: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RequirementsDraft which seems to get updated in the wiki. I've not done a detailed review, nor am I clear what state of flux the document is in (sections 4 and 5 seem to be alternative organizations). But I thought I'd just remind folks of my general position wrt this document so we don't get surprised later. I (still) favor a very lightweight document. I would put a strong length requirement on this document and a similar complexity one. Its' currently at about 29 papes when I PDF it. If I cut out section 4, we are only 4 pages shorter. Section 5 is 11 pages, but I think is nicer (and it is, after all, my originally proposed organization). It seems to me that something like 5 stands on its own and could easily be the whole document. I don't see the need for the use case section at all nor for the Users and Applications. In fact, they seem very very confusing. I don't like the term "Motivating use cases" because that suggests a causal history which just might not be there. If we keep that, I would suggest "Applicable to:" or something like that. I think that that link isn't helpful though because it's not at all clear what features really are applicable or how. We can't possibly add enough text to make the connections clear and I think the examples, esp. if they vary subject matter, do very well to convey the sense. (That is, instead of laying out a range of uses explicitly, just let the examples (ONE PER FEATURE) lay out the range of uses *implicitly*.) I think section 5, by itself, would make a very nice and readable document and would serve as a good model for future groups. I think the other material is interesting but too much for this document. I'd suggest migrating it over to OWLED. It'd really be better as a database of some sort with heavy cross references and ongoing maintenance. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 11:41:56 UTC