1 / 4

User Facing Documents Task Force

User Facing Documents Task Force. Objective : to produce “less technical” documents for potential authors and users of OWL content

jamil
Télécharger la présentation

User Facing Documents Task Force

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. User Facing Documents Task Force Objective: to produce “less technical” documents for potential authors and users of OWL content Participants: Alan Ruttenberg, Bijan Parsia, Deb McGuinness, Evan Wallace, Jeremy, Carroll, Jim Hendler, Vipul Kashyap, Martic Dzbor, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Elisa Kendall • Charter deliverables which could be in scope: • Overview (introduction to the language) • Requirements • Descriptive specification (filling the role of OWL reference) • User Guide • Possibly additional outreach material e.g. Bijan’s User Guide for numerics in OWL

  2. UF Document ideas from members: • A revision of OWL Overview from Rec • A revision of OWL Reference • “Traceability” doc showing features linked to requirements and use cases from multiple domains

  3. No group agreement • Different views about audience • Some of the Issues: • Concern with this work slowing other WG deliverables • Disagreement with the WG producing some of these documents, particularly a Rec. docs • Concern with the organization, redundancy, length, and correctness of the OWL Rec. docs in this category • Concern about reader confusion about what is normative • Different views about preferred concrete syntax to describe (use in examples) • Disagreement on view (SemWeb –vs- DL) of language to describe • Trying to reach some agreement has prevented any forward process

  4. One possible way forward • Start working on some content • Perhaps working towards a document set like: • An introductory document between OWL 1.1 Overview and OWL Overview from Rec. (without the species of OWL emphasis) • A document intended as a language reference written in plain english • Requirements with traceability Use selectable views for syntax and content (see Bijan’s OWL tutorial document as an example)

More Related