Re: Review of QRG (Action 307)

On 27 Mar 2009, at 17:16, Christine Golbreich wrote:
[snip]
>> The purpose of the QRG is to be
>> a simple, one page, doublesided reference card/cheat sheet.
> [..]
>
> several of us have understood that the QRG may serve as a convenient
> entry that points to  the other documents,

It "may" do so, but that is not its intent, nor is it is purpose. You  
wrote:

"""Since QRG is a guide to other documents (IMO)"""

It is not such a guide. It is a cheatsheet.  It may, as a side effect,  
be a useful guide. But that is not its purpose.

This is really a very simple thing.

Feedback should be aimed toward improving its primary function first.  
Anything else is extra.

> cf. the 2nd paragraph
> "Status of this Document" of QRG :
>
> "The Quick Reference Guide provides links into other documents that it
> is intended to complement, particularly the OWL 2 Primer for examples,
> the Syntax document for more details of syntax, and the New Features
> and Rationale document for selected feature descriptions."

That is not a statement of it's purpose.

> 4) > I would vigorously oppose any scope creep or retargeting.
>
> As far as I am concerned, I did not propose  "any scope creep or
> retargeting" in my review, but simply suggested  a *possible*
> reorganization of the current content of the document.

All I oppose is your stated rationale as you stated it.

> Hope it's still possible to make a comment in a review, without
> vigorous reaction.

I hope it is still possible to discuss things and make clarifications  
without it being insinuated that its somehow inappropriate to do so.

> 5)
>> based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the QRG, then I would  
>> urge
>> reconsideration of that feedback.
>
> My review is based on the wiki version available online for review.
> Sorry, but I don't see any reason to reconsider it.

You misread and misquoted my sentence. *If* your reorganization is  
based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of QRG then you should  
consider whether you proposed reorganization damages its actual  
purpose. I don't know whether it does either way.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Friday, 27 March 2009 18:29:53 UTC