question about less technicality/dumbing down (was Re: Notes from Editors Breakout (by Chris W.))

Thanks for the collective work.
The impact of the notes is a bit difficult to fully comprehend without
being there but one thing that I wanted to check in about was the note by
frank on the feature synopsis being less technical and the sniped note
below by jim below that i infer expands to "Feature Synopsis dumbed down to

Two things that I think are useful in the feature synopsis document are:
1 - a simple listing of the constructs grouped meaningfully
2 - the expanded form below for each construct:
    a sentence about what it means simply
    an example of it being used
    a sentence of the form:  "from this a reasoner can derive..."
    optional additional sentence if something is complicated

i am happy if the suggestion is to drop the technical notes like the cycles
reference that i had been previously asked to put in if that is what is
being meant by being less technical and being dumbed down.
I would be unhappy if your editing round on friday is going to drop the
examples however since that is an important aspect to the usefulness of the
document i believe.

it also looks from frank's note that there may be a request for the roadmap
in the feature synopsis and in jim's note it looks like the roadmap may be
separate and on the web page.
I think the second makes the most sense.
I am willing to help generate the roadmap;  i just think having that as a
separate guide to reading is preferable to putting it in the feature
synopsis document


Jim Hendler wrote:

> FS dumbed down to OV
> --

 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801
705 0941

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 13:23:17 UTC