W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Action-98 One page quick reference card / accessibility

From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:58:10 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670808192058nb4e727bnf055f96242834b4d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, "Evan Wallace" <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>

Hi All

There is an update draft of the OWL 2 quicl reference guide  at:


Please note that draft is yet incomplete. As some naming issues are
pending, there are terms with the "?" mark

Comments are welcome.


Jie (representing Elisa, Deborah and Evan)

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> I exchanged email with Li Ding, who originally created the semantic web card
> you've referenced, below.  He provided the original MS Word version we can
> use as a starting point - will email Ivan off list on migrating that to some
> other form so that we can "play with it".
> Thanks,
> Elisa
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> Conversation with Ivan:
>> Alan:
>> There's some interest in having something like a quick reference  card.
>> Formatting/typesetting of this card would be important, in  order to have it
>> fit on the page, etc. However Peter pointed out that  this may not be to the
>> W3C's liking for reasons of accessibility,  viewing on any device, etc, so I
>> was tasked with an action to ask you  about what guidelines are with respect
>> to this.
>> There's a semantic web one that someone produced that is inspiration.
>>  http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/resource/html/id/94/
>> Basically we're still trying to avoid a situation where we create
>>  redundant documents. This  would be a creative way of handling an
>>  important function of the overview  and there was general agreement  in the
>> UFDTF that this sort of thing is useful.
>> Ivan:
>> AFAIK, such cards have been produced before both for OWL and SPARQL  (but
>> I may be wrong). But never as an 'official' W3C deliverable.
>> Peter is right that there would be quite a problem with W3C producing  a
>> W3C recommendation or any other document in PDF (only). If somebody  could
>> come up with a clever way of achieving the same effect with CSS  (and then
>> have it in forms of PDF, too), well, that could work.  Otherwise we keep it
>> non-official.
>> -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 03:58:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC