W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: A stab at operationalizing Evan Wallace's suggestion for a new Overview

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +0000
Message-Id: <CC792C74-35C3-4493-AC1B-D55D0DD11CC3@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>

On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:
[snip Rinke's description of one of my key concerns with the existing  
>  Nonetheless the difference in the way in which the language is  
> presented to the reader *is* probably relevant, something we could  
> overcome by maintaining two orthogonal tables of contents.
> Is there a particular reason why these should be separate real  
> (i.e. monolithic, linear) documents, and not closely interlinked  
> 'perspectives' on the same content?

This is met by my proposal to enhance the structural specification with:
	1) more modular/referencelike organization; slightly richer "less  
formal" english descriptions, and examples,
	2) CSS tricks to allow hiding of information/alternative views/ 
syntaxes, etc.
	3) appropriate indexes/interfaces for reference like navigation

This is intended to replace the reference and that part of the  
overview which acts as a terse reference/index. My hope is that we'll  
have *one* definitive place where the description, canonical example,  
and the formal (syntactic) definition all live (with a link tothe  
formal semantics) so you have *one clear path* from "friendly idea"  
to "full specification" for any bit of OWL, even if you choose to  
explore things in other ways.

I am tasked by the task force to produce a proof of concept of this  
for a section of the struc spec. I'm also tasked to produce a proof  
of concept draft of what I take as replacing the overview/guide which  
I call the primer.

Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 14:40:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:01 UTC