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

Christine -

That would be helpful I think.  Next time we talk to work on the 
requirements we could also discuss the QRG. 

Best,

Elisa

Christine Golbreich wrote:

>>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
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>