- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +0000
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: [snip Rinke's description of one of my key concerns with the existing UFDs] > 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. > > Is there a particular reason why these should be separate real > (i.e. monolithic, linear) documents, and not closely interlinked > 'perspectives' on the same content? This is met by my proposal to enhance the structural specification with: 1) more modular/referencelike organization; slightly richer "less formal" english descriptions, and examples, 2) CSS tricks to allow hiding of information/alternative views/ syntaxes, etc. 3) appropriate indexes/interfaces for reference like navigation This is intended to replace the reference and that part of the overview which acts as a terse reference/index. My hope is that we'll have *one* definitive place where the description, canonical example, and the formal (syntactic) definition all live (with a link tothe formal semantics) so you have *one clear path* from "friendly idea" to "full specification" for any bit of OWL, even if you choose to explore things in other ways. I am tasked by the task force to produce a proof of concept of this for a section of the struc spec. I'm also tasked to produce a proof of concept draft of what I take as replacing the overview/guide which I call the primer. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 14:40:43 UTC