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

Hi All

Below is the feedback collected from the quick reference card team,
per my assignment on Action 197


On "Explore options for Quick Reference having (also) other OWL syntaxes"

>From Elisa

I personally believe that if the RDF syntax is not there, the QSG will
not be very useful to most.  Perhaps we should include N3 if there are
supporters for it (I'm not sure there would be many visual
differences), and Manchester only if this group insists.  The
alternate syntactic forms should be on separate versions or pages, NOT
on the front page.  One alternative, ... would be to have multiple
versions of the document - an RDF/XML version, an N3 version (maybe),
a Manchester version (maybe) ... but I'd need a compelling business
reason to spend any time on it, and don't see it so far.


>From Deb

i think that the rdf syntax is currently the one that will get the most use.
i think we are all open to including other syntaxes according to what
people think is most useful and if there is demand for it.

i am not sure if the show hide option will work on an html version but
if so, that seems to be a reasonable route.
having multiple versions of the document may be the simplest if there
is still demand for the one page front and back option.

i think the bottom line is that we need some feeling of the consensus
among the group and users if
1 - there is demand for one syntax other than rdf over others
2 - there is agreement that this is important enough to break the one
page front and back upper limit on size

for the pdf version, it seems we would need multiple versions if we
had multiple syntaxes.  i am not against this but we need more clear
input and demand for which syntax is of the next most usage and who
that user group is.


On Uli's suggestion on organization

The task force is agreed to make changes according the suggestion


On making a html version of the guide

>From Deb:

i think we should keep working on the wiki.
we should thank bijan for his effort.
as i mentioned in later mail, bijan's version had much information cut
off in my explorer view and did not have a scroll bar so i was not
sure how to get the information back.  in firefox it was better but
still cut off content without a scroll bar.
i think what we take from this is that an html version can be made to
work (but i am not sure that it works with different font sizes - my
font size is pushed up as i presume is true for many people over 40)
but when i pushed it back down it got to an unreadably small size
before all of the content in the columns came back in.




On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Uli Sattler <> wrote:
> 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:
>> 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 <>
>> 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.
>>>> 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, 27 August 2008 10:26:15 UTC