Re: Response to Uli and Peter's review on the QRG

From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Response to Uli and Peter's review on the QRG
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:45:05 +0100

> 
> 
> 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)

Many of my critiques of the card also have to do with the rationale for
the organization, not with the details of what is placed where.  As I
indicated, however, I am skeptical that a coherent rationale can be
easily obtained.  I remain skeptical even in the face of the existence
of the UMBC card.  In particular, I think that a WG product has to do a
better job than the UMBC card.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 19:21:23 UTC