- From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:48:45 -0400
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Christine While 2-page layout is not a rigid requirement, I believe a 2-page (single sheet of paper) guide is much better than a 4-page (two sheets) guide. It may be easier to print, fold and carry with, and less intimidating for beginners. I used to laminate the Ubiquity card (as many commercial reference cards are) and carry it everywhere when I started learning RDF/OWL. Unless 2-page layout is absolutely impossible, I would still prefer to have it. Jie 2009/4/15 Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>: > 2009/4/15 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>: >> On 15 Apr 2009, at 17:00, Christine Golbreich wrote: >> >>> Perhaps did I miss something, may I dare ask why the QRG is strictly >>> limited to 2 pages in pdf? is that constraint so rigid? >> >> I think so. The design goal for the QRG is to produce a reference card a la: >> http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/_file_directory_/resources/94.pdf > > I remember, does it exclude 2 cards recto verso = 4 pages ? > and even so, why should we be so rigid ? > >> Indeed, it was modeled on that. >> >> The Ubiquity card has gotten quite a few downloads (I forget what they >> said...Elisa?) and serves a nice, distinctive role. >> >> Cheers, >> Bijan. >> >> > > > > -- > Christine > -- Jie Bao http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie Facebook,Twitter,Skype,Msn,LinkedIn - check url above
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 16:49:24 UTC