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

Re: links to bibliography

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:33:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090311.183324.184854040.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: links to bibliography
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:15:58 -0400

> This isn't critical path for this publication round, but one of the
> things about our documents that still bugs me a lot as a reader is how
> bibliographic references are done in the text.  

[...]

> How about this:
> 
>    1.  Let's avoid "the OWL 2 <something> document"; just give the
>        title, and make it a hyperlink directly to the document (which
>        helps make it clear it's a title).  For sections, link to the
>        section.

>From RDF Semantics, "RDF Concepts document [RDF-CONCEPTS]", so we are
not the first offenders.

>    2.  Pick short (necessarily cryptic) names for each document, for use
>        in linking to the bibliography.  My suggestions:
> 
>          OWL2SS     Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax
>                               (or OWL2STRUC)
>          OWL2DS     Direct Semantics      
>          OWL2RS     RDF-Based Semantics   
>          OWL2CONF   Conformance
>          OWL2MAP    Mapping to RDF Graphs     (or OWL2RDF)
>          OWL2XML    XML Serialization
>          OWL2PROF   Profiles
>          OWL2QRG    Quick Reference Guide
>          OWL2NFR    New Features and Rationale  (or OWL2NEWF)
>          OWL2MANC   Manchester Syntax     (or OWL2MS)

We could even use "Syntax", "Direct Semantics", "RDF Semantics",
"Conformance", "Mapping", "XML", "Profiles", "QRG", "NF&R", and
"Manchester", all of which I prefer to the above..  We would not
alphabetise based on these short names, instead alphabetising by
document title.

> So the above bits would look like this (where I've used "_" to try to
> show where parts are links):
> 
>     ... is defined in _OWL 2 Structural Specification_ [OWL2SS] ..
> 
>     ... _OWL 2 New Features and Rationale_ [OWL2NFR] describes all the
>     new features of OWL 2 ...
> 
>     ... (see _OWL 2 Conformance, Section 2.1_ [OWL2CONF]) ...
> 
> Okay?  Can we do something like this?
> 
>      -- Sandro

Well, the W3C way of doing refs is quite broken.  I believe that the
usual way is something like

	text text maybe doc title [_ref_] text

where there is only one link, _ref_ which links into the bibliography.

This is just *WRONG*.  To get to the real ref requires two clicks, and
often a visual search, as the bibliography is at the end of the
document, and the bib item might not show up at the top of the page.

Sandro's suggestion is much better.  It would be even better, in my
view, if the [...] didn't even link into the bibliography!  I mean, when
do you ever want to look at the bibliography when reading on-line?  You
can just go to the document itself.  

However, in the interests of everlasting WG peace, I'm willing to go
along with Sandro's suggestion. :-)  

peter
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 22:32:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 March 2009 22:32:47 GMT