- From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:01:37 -0400
- To: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, "Li Ding" <dingl@cs.rpi.edu>, "Evan Patton" <pattoe@rpi.edu>
Hi Peter and Uli Thank you for the input. Our original approach was to follow the strategy taken for the original Semantic Web/OWL Reference Card [1,2], which was by design an index page for RDF/OWL vocabularies. The reason to have the original card as a starting point is because it has been downloaded and used by thousands of people (5000+ download) in the past three years, and a large community of users have found it useful. The current version of QRG follows [1]'s tradition in informally grouping terms in the vocabulary (e.g., into "Concepts" and "Properties") with the intention for users to quickly locate those terms. Such a grouping is not meant to give a precise definition of OWL 2 or to represent the formal semantics (although it attempts to be compatible to the semantics documents). Therefore, we have not yet spent a great deal of time on the kinds of organizational questions you raise. We will think through how to cluster and name (maybe) the sets of terms in ways that would be meaningful to people who would use such a card. Thank you again for the review - we would appreciate it if you would take another look once we have made another pass. [1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/resource/html/id/97/ [2] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/resource/html/id/94/ (A4 size)
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 18:12:38 UTC