Re: WebOnt General Requirements Subgroup - Initial E-mail

[...]
> Given this as a starting point, I'd like to solicit feedback on the
> following issues:
>
> 1) Is the name "General Requirements" appropriate? Do we prefer
> something else? Perhaps "Core Requirements?" Other suggestions?

WOL Requirements???

> 2) How should we proceed? I recommend that Deborah and I merge our
> initial requirements and then present these to the rest of the group as
> a straw man. For those interested, my initial sketch of requirements for
> a Web Ont language can be found at
> http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~heflin/webont/reqs.html

I've read both "initial requirements" pieces and I think
that an merge is a good first step

> 3) What format should the detailed requirements take? Guus Schreiber's
> suggestion for Use Case format doesn't fit, since we are describing
> requirements. I propose the following format:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> REQUIREMENT:
> A short name for the requirement
>
> SUPPORTED TASKS:
> Which use cases (or classes of use cases) will benefit from this
> requirement?
>
> JUSTIFICATION:
> Why is the requirement important? What will it achieve?
>
> POSSIBLE APPROACH:
> How might our language design satisfy or support the requirement?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, that's a good proposal (and let's see how it works in the straw man)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/