- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:49:29 -0400
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Christine Golbreich wrote: > 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. >> thanks for the comments. the original goal for this document was to replace section 2 [1] of the owl overview since numerous people had commented on how useful it was. We thought that the ebiquity card was a nice model that had similar usage. the original plan was to have a condensed version that hopefully would fit on 2 pages but i am not wedded to the 2 page idea. (i know some others strongly prefer a version that is 2 pages though). if we could get to 2 pages without sacrificing too much, that is ok with me but if we have content that we feel is quite useful that pushes it a little above 2, that is also ok with me. if keeping a small amount more length increases either its useful content or its understandability, that is a tradeoff that i think is worth making. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s2 deborah
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 16:50:25 UTC