W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > August 2005

Re: [OEP] The n-ary relations draft is ready for outside review

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 16:14:50 +0100
Message-ID: <42F0DF6A.2030706@w3.org>
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>

Christopher Welty wrote:

>I just don't think any of us are in a position to tell whether this is a 
>reasonable compromise or not.  A general rule of tutorial writing is to 
>put advanced material in a clearly supplemental spot, so that novices 
>don't find it distracting.  Imagine teaching an elementary-schooler about 
>the formula "rate x time = distance" by saying:
>We will discuss how to calculate the distance you travelled given the 
>speed at which you travelled and the time you spent travelling.  This 
>avoids using relativistic frames of reference for reasons discussed in the 
>final section.
>So, *I* think what we had was a reasonable compromise, I don't think the 
>document shoudl mention RDF reification at all, but I'm not the editor.
Fair point, re "we interupt this simple intro to mention
some complicated and confusing things you might not
know about that we're going to skip right over...".

I'm in favour of mentioning reification in an appendix; but
it needn't even be linked from the main section, except by
table of contents. If you don't mention it, the minority who are
familiar with it will be confused...

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2005 15:14:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:43 UTC