Re: usage guide section 3.7 is broken

Jack,

One more option is: to keep the section in its place, in the main section
keep the textual descriptions of the rules, move the listings to the
appendix and in the appendix fix them to the extent possible and add the
caveats that these are not fully tested. In either case, the rules have to
be fixed to the extent that they are in synch with the textual descriptions
of rules (I completely agree).

Regards
Rama Akkiraju




                                                                           
             Jacek Kopecky                                                 
             <jacek.kopecky@de                                             
             ri.org>                                                    To 
             Sent by:                  Rama Akkiraju/Watson/IBM@IBMUS      
             public-ws-semann-                                          cc 
             request@w3.org            SAWSDL public list                  
                                       <public-ws-semann@w3.org>,          
                                       public-ws-semann-request@w3.org     
             08/21/2007 10:09                                      Subject 
             AM                        Re: usage guide section 3.7 is      
                                       broken                              
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Hi Rama,
your summary is absolutely correct, we wanted to have the section in the
Usage Guide. My problem now is that the listings seem all broken.
I'll take your suggestion for moving to appendix with caveats as another
option (assuming the caveats being something like "the listings are
probably broken, but the reader will get the idea").

Currently we have these options on the table for Section 3.7:
     0) leave as is
     1) fix listings
     2) drop listings, leave only textual description
     3) move to appendix with caveats
     4) drop section

What I meant by more plausible was "more plausibly correct", i.e. not
wrt. content but form. The content is quite good, I'd say - with the
weight, area, time etc. It's just that the listings don't reflect it
well enough for anybody who goes through the details. And if the reader
is not going through the details, then the listings are not even useful.
That's why my preferred option would probably be to fix the listings (1)
but we have too little time for that, or drop the listings (2), only
keeping the textual description and listing 3.7-8 that would point to
some URIs which we would say would contain the rule definitions.

Hope this clarifies it,
Jacek


On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 22:33 -0400, Rama Akkiraju wrote:
> Jack,
>
> In my opinion, we should not drop section 3.7. If you recall, it was
added
> to address a point that was repeatedly raised by some parts of the
> community that they would get most value from the spec if some guidance
is
> given on how to represent preconditions and effects using SAWSDL spec. We
> did not want to make any explicit statements about preconditions and
> effects in the main spec. So, we chose to add some examples in the user
> guide document. To the extent possible, we should fix up the rules and
keep
> it in the user guide. If the rules can't be fixed up to the point of
> satisfaction and verification, I suggest we move the section to appendix,
> with some caveats but not delete it completely.
>
> Regarding your point on coming up with more plausible conditions and
> effects, that would be good if anyone has any inputs. But I have already
> sent out emails to the public semantic interest group seeking examples on
> preconditions and effects at the time and have not received any response
> from anyone. The only piece of input we got is from Thomas (thanks to him
> for that)  and we have incorporated those. Frankly, although the current
> conditions and effects are lame, they fit in the purchase order domain we
> have described throughout the document. More plausible conditions may
> require a lot of context and explanation of another example, which we
have
> purposefully avoided to keep the examples simple. From that point of
view,
> I think the current conditions are ok if not the best.
>
> Regards
> Rama Akkiraju
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 15:52:16 UTC