report: twoards: use \descripton

doc/report/towards.tex

@@ -17,23 +17,28 @@ is completely automated. Automation, we believe, come downs to two
 things, (1)~automation of the export infrastructure and (2)~enabling
 automation through machine readability.
 
-First of all, we believe that the export of third party library into
-Endpoint storage needs to be fully automated. We believe this is the
-for two major reason. First of all, syntax errors and invalid
-predicates need to be avoided. It is unreasonable to expect a systems
-administrator to fix each ULO~export in its one particular way. At the
-very least, automated validators~\cite{rval, rcmd} should be used to
-check the validity of ULO~exports.
-
-The second problem is one of ontology design. The goal of RDF and
-related technologies was to have universal machine readable knowledge
-available for querying. As such it is necessary to make efforts that
-the ULO exports we create are machine readable. Here we want to remind
-the reader of the previously discussed \texttt{ulo:sourceref} dilemma
-(Section~\ref{sec:exp}). It required special domain knowledge about
-the specific export for us to resolve a source reference to actual
-source code. A machine readable approach would be to instead decide on
-a fixed format for field such as \texttt{ulo:sourceref}.
+\begin{description}
+    \item[Fully Automated Checks] First of all, we believe that the
+    export of third party library into Endpoint storage needs to be
+    fully automated. We believe this is the for two major
+    reason. First of all, syntax errors and invalid predicates need to
+    be avoided. It is unreasonable to expect a systems administrator
+    to fix each ULO~export in its one particular way. At the very
+    least, automated validators~\cite{rval, rcmd} should be used to
+    check the validity of ULO~exports.
+
+    \item[Well Defined Formats] The second problem is one of ontology
+    design. The goal of RDF and related technologies was to have
+    universal machine readable knowledge available for querying. As
+    such it is necessary to make efforts that the ULO exports we
+    create are machine readable. Here we want to remind the reader of
+    the previously discussed \texttt{ulo:sourceref} dilemma
+    (Section~\ref{sec:exp}). It required special domain knowledge
+    about the specific export for us to resolve a source reference to
+    actual source code. A machine readable approach would be to
+    instead decide on a fixed format for field such
+    as \texttt{ulo:sourceref}.
+\end{description}
 
 Infrastructure that runs without the need of outside intervention and
 a machine readable knowledge base can lay out the groundwork for a