- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:45:05 +0100
- To: "Jie Bao" <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@cs.rpi.edu>, "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, "Li Ding" <dingl@cs.rpi.edu>, "Evan Patton" <pattoe@rpi.edu>
On 8 Oct 2008, at 19:01, Jie Bao wrote: > > 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. Hi Jie, I didn't mean to imply that grouping as such was not helpful -- on the contrary. I only found the way you grouped and the names you gave for the groups confusing. > > > 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. > So when i said in today's telecon that i would rather prefer to comment on the design than on the implementation, i meant that i would rather comment on a specification of the groups (what is your rational for making groups? what groups are you going to make?) than on a whole re-designed reference card. I would think that this would be easier and faster for us all. Cheers, Uli > [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 18:44:17 UTC