W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: ACTION-333 Quick Review of Quick Reference Guide

From: Deborah L McGuinness <dlmcg1@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:32:38 -0500
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Message-Id: <D6F5A91B-267E-470A-A245-6F811237CA58@aol.com>
Cc: "bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk" <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I am in the boondocks and can not download to review. I suggest that
1 I talk to jie on Monday
2 we get a plan that we as a group agree on before removing links
3 we consider an optional version that has more links if the group  
really wants all or most of the links to "gentler" content removed. (I  
have users who would benefit from the links to examples so I would  
like to have a place to send them.
Also I am sorry to say that I think 8 of font is the smallest we  
should go if we want people over 40 to use the doc

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 23, 2009, at 7:13 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com 
 > wrote:

> From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: ACTION-333 Quick Review of Quick Reference Guide
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:40:05 +0100
>> On 23 Apr 2009, at 09:03, Christine Golbreich wrote:
>>> A first quick comment about links.
> [...]
>> IMHO, NF&R serves yet a different purpose, rather, two different
>> purposes: 1) it serves as a transition document, i.e., a Primer for  
>> OWL
>> 1 people with a specific sort of focus on the new features; and 2) it
>> serves as documentation of how to design useful extensions to OWL by
>> documenting how we *did* design useful extensions to OWL. For 1, I
>> expect, like the primer, those users to eventually outgrow it. For 2,
>> they are coming to it in a totally different context. It's unlikely  
>> that
>> they'd use or want to use QRG for that task.
> Well said!  As well, if we decide to keep links to Primer, then Primer
> is a much better document to serve as a gentle place for further
> information about an OWL 2 feature.  If we decide to not keep links to
> Primer then we are saying not to link to primer material at all, and  
> the
> links to NF&R go as well.
>>> I suggest to keep all links to NF&R and Primer. Otherwise if you
>>> consider that they are "not very useful", remove both links to NF&R
>>> and Primer.
>> I would do this (i.e., remove both). It's not a matter of possible
>> utility, but of appropriateness for the common use. The QRG is  
>> supposed
>> to be a "quick" version of the *reference* material. The reference
>> document is the Structural Syntax (by design). It provides a uniform
>> description of the entire language with comprehensive examples. We
>> *want* people to use it as their "go to" reference document (this  
>> is why
>> we unified the old Reference and Syntax document).
>> The better each document is fit for a clear, distinct purpose the  
>> more
>> value it has, and, I think, the more value the document collection  
>> has
>> as a whole. This is why I push back on scope creep and *apparent*  
>> scope
>> creep. Apparent scope creep confuses readers and people trying to  
>> teach
>> or train from the documents.
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
> I would go along with removing the links to Primer.  They don't have
> that much utility - users of QRG can always go to SS&FS.  However, I
> would also go along with keeping the links to Primer.  They might help
> people who might need a gentler discussion of some aspect of OWL 2  
> than
> is provided by SS&FS.
> peter
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 13:34:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC