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

Deborah McGuinness wrote:

> 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.

There was no decision (nor great intent) to remove the examples, but to 
remove some of the techie-talk that crept into the document.
[Actually, the msg from Jim were notes by Chris;
 I believe that my notes from earlierin the day more accurately represent
 what we agreed to be done on the document]

> also,
> 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

The main function of the Synopsis (to be rebaptised as "Overview") is as 
first entry point for anybody wanting to learn about OWL. A single paragraph 
explaining what to read next for which purpose would not be out of place, I 
think, and easy to write.


Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 18:10:31 UTC