- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:39:02 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Apr 2009, at 15:16, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> 2) I was (still, mistakenly?) under the impression that the web-based >> QRG is to function as an alternative index to multiple documents in >> the OWL 2 specification. I believe we discussed this at F2F1 (may >> have >> been offline). In this role, having *as many* links as possible is a >> good thing. >> >> On the other hand, I fully agree that a quick ref *card* should >> contain a minimal number of links, and if they do exist, they should >> be inline (as Peter says). > > Yeah, I agree the links are useful on-line, when using QRG as an index > (I think the new column is great), and of course they're a total waste > of space in the printed version. This seems like a perfect example of > when it's useful to have the print version have certain bits (the 4th > column) removed. > > Honestly, trying on my user hat, I'd also want columns for exactly the > syntaxes I use. If I were a Manchester Syntax user, I'd want a column > for that; and if I never touched RDF triples, I wouldn't want that > column. /me hears lots of groans..... Why don't we release a minimal version with an open content license so that particular communities and user groups can make their own? In other words, why don't we work on making the *foundation* as good as possible so that future embellishments can be added as appropriate by other people? That way, we don't end up with the current one being pulled in all different directions. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 14:35:11 UTC