Re: review of Document Overview

I'm a little ambivalent.
On the one hand I think that figures, as visual support, are helpful
for users. (The size of the sets and their intersection is relatively
secondary w.r.t  the information on the relationships).
On the other hand, I'm not 100% sure that this figure is correct, and
even if correct, might it not be misleading ?

1) "OWL 2 (Full)", is indeed odd. Does it denote OWL 2, OWL 2 FULL?
Should it be FULL ?
2)  Does it *only* represent increasingly expressive *syntax* (cf. the
legend "Syntactic Subsets (Profiles)"?
3) Is the term "Profile" really relevant for OWL 2 Full ?
4) Are such diagrams not often viewed as representing increasingly
expressive sub-languages (syntax + semantics) interpreted under the
same semantics (usually model theory)?
which semantics here ?

I remember much confusion generated by a diagram about DLP interpreted
under different semantics.

If this entire diagram was to be kept, it would need some clear text
to be added.

--
Christine

2009/4/4 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: review of Document Overview
> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:07:50 +0200
>
>> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>>>> 2.4/ Profiles:
>>>>>>> Remove Figure 2, as it serves no useful purpose.
>>>> I'm baffled as to what purpose you think this figure serves and why
>>>> its loss will be mourned. AFAICT, the information content of the
>>>> figure is:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> It's not intended to provide additional information; it's about
>>> presentation.  It's intended to make the relationship between the
>>> profiles feel as simple as it actually is.  A simple-looking diagram
>>> conveys that feeling much more effectively, I think, than the text.
>>>
>>> But perhaps that's just me, so I'm okay with letting it go
>> until/unless
>>> others speak up for it.
>>>
>>
>> I have been looking at the flood of mails on one single diagram, gave
>> some thinking and, after all, I decided to speak up for it, too
>> (although, I must admit, I was not sure about it for a while).
>>
>> I think that the argument on whether the diagram gives additional
>> information or not is besides the point. Obviously it does not, just as
>> none of the diagrams do either in this document or the others, except
>> for the 'official' UML diagrams. But let us accept the fact that for
>> many people a diagram helps in understanding things, relationships and
>> makes it easier to follow than a succinct (though precise) text. (I am
>> certainly one of those, after all, I spent most of my research years in
>> computer graphics and visualization and not in web technologies.) I
>> would actually be pleased to have _more_ diagrams in the spec documents,
>> too, even if they would not add any new information and therefore would
>> not serve a useful purpose specification wise.
>>
>> If this diagram is not _false_ (which I do not think it is the case), I
>> would propose to leave it in. It does not harm, and it may help. What is
>> the big deal?
>>
>> Ivan
>
> Every extra "bit" of a document adds harm.  Remember, "less is more"!
> To offset that harm the "bit" should make a significant improvement to
> the document as a whole.  This is especially true for figures, which, by
> their very nature, are very much more "in your face" than text.
>
> I don't see any advantage to Figure 2.  Aside from the fact that it
> only reiterates what is said in the text, Figure 2 also thrusts into the
> limelight things that should not be there.  For example:  What are the
> four unnamed intersections in the document?   Is EL about half the size
> of DL?  Is DL about half the size of Full?  Why the odd "OWL 2 (Full)"
> construction?   Is Figure 2 as important as Section 3.1?
>
> peter
>
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 14:31:04 UTC