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

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

From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:16:06 +0100
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, "Evan Wallace" <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Message-Id: <0F6B684F-7E9A-4063-8D64-771193AC8357@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>

Hi, and thanks for the draft! I would like to make some suggestions  
regarding the structure of the language reference: would it be  
possible to name & order the 'headers' such that they reflect their  
content? E.g.,  an Object Property Restriction is a class description,  
and so are other restrictions and class expressions. In contrast,  
axioms have a different status. Could and should this somehow be  
reflected or taken into account? Cheers, Uli

On 20 Aug 2008, at 04:58, Jie Bao wrote:

> Hi All
> There is an update draft of the OWL 2 quicl reference guide  at:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/images/8/8e/Owl2- 
> refcard_2008-08-19.pdf
> Please note that draft is yet incomplete. As some naming issues are
> pending, there are terms with the "?" mark
> Comments are welcome.
> Regards
> 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 17:24:47 UTC

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