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

>From recent reviews and comments, my impression is that the structure
and form of the QRG may still need to be worked out.
Would it be helpful to have some work on its content
organization/design by the UFDTF or has it already been discussed?
I apologize in advance, but I was not in the WG at its beginning and
don't know exactly what may have been decided.

Christine

2008/10/8 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 21:41:41 UTC