- From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:43:09 -0500
- To: "'Rinke Hoekstra'" <hoekstra@uva.nl>, "'Deborah L. McGuinness'" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Rinke,
> OWL 1.0 Guide/Overview
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#EnumeratedClasses
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#DisjointClasses
> OWL 1.0 Reference
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#EnumeratedClass
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#disjointWith-def
> FWIW, I think the duplication was really confusing ("where did I read
> this?"), and we should try to avoid this for 1.1 so I really vote for
> a single 'document' that combines the two (and the new owl 1.1
> overview). Nonetheless the difference in the way in which the
> language is presented to the reader *is* probably relevant, something
> we could overcome by maintaining two orthogonal tables of contents.
I agree with this, at least in terms of preserving the reference manual.
It is helpful for users who are past the introductory material, and just
need to jog their memory about details. Typical software document
breaks up introductory and reference material, but it would be fine, and
as Rinke says, less redundant and error-prone to combine them.
Conrad
Received on Friday, 7 December 2007 16:44:14 UTC