W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Driving while EL++ (or high on DL Lite, or under the influence of OWL-R)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:12:50 +0100
Message-Id: <024472C9-5CB2-4929-AC39-B85C95ADFD26@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Thinking more about profiling, I moved my preliminary explanatory  
text into the primer:
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#OWL_Profiles

(So review and ednotes notes format nicely now.) Unfortunately, even  
the current, fairly abbreviated text bloats the primer quite a bit.  
And not just with page count, but with a mass of concepts and details  
that seem to make the document much less approachable. Just the  
headers in the outline are a bit much.

But I think bloating up the existing profiles document is also not a  
great idea. So, we could have more subtle material throughout the  
primer (including modes to see each example "in" a fragment). I might  
do some of that anyway. I think having a separate fragment for each  
primer is really bad (I worry about document bloat and this would  
lead to very complicated interactions). My other thought was to split  
the profiles document into a document per profile. Here's a first,  
very simplistic experiment for EL++
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Standalone_Profile:_EL

If we went down that route, I would advocate a very rigid structure,  
esp. for the intro/background.

One nice thing about this is that it makes adding additional profiles  
(inside or outside the W3C) much easier. One just replicates the  
basic structure and level of detail of one of these. Thus, if we (or  
an OWLED taskforce) wanted to add a HornSHIQ profile, we'd copy,  
fold, spindle, and mutilate an existing profile document.

I'm not 100% sure I favor this, but it is one possibility.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 09:13:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 April 2008 09:13:45 GMT