- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:16:17 -0400
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> 2) I was (still, mistakenly?) under the impression that the web-based
> QRG is to function as an alternative index to multiple documents in
> the OWL 2 specification. I believe we discussed this at F2F1 (may have
> been offline). In this role, having *as many* links as possible is a
> good thing.
>
> On the other hand, I fully agree that a quick ref *card* should
> contain a minimal number of links, and if they do exist, they should
> be inline (as Peter says).
Yeah, I agree the links are useful on-line, when using QRG as an index
(I think the new column is great), and of course they're a total waste
of space in the printed version. This seems like a perfect example of
when it's useful to have the print version have certain bits (the 4th
column) removed.
Honestly, trying on my user hat, I'd also want columns for exactly the
syntaxes I use. If I were a Manchester Syntax user, I'd want a column
for that; and if I never touched RDF triples, I wouldn't want that
column. /me hears lots of groans.....
> I think the current discussion (at least partly) hinges on a
> different conception of what the role of the QRG/QRC should be. Both
> roles seem perfectly sensible to me. Making the purpose of this
> document explicit would help a lot.
-- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 14:16:26 UTC