links to bibliography

This isn't critical path for this publication round, but one of the
things about our documents that still bugs me a lot as a reader is how
bibliographic references are done in the text.  I already complained
about "[OWL 2 Structural Specification]", but let me quote a few bits:

    ... is defined in the OWL 2 Structural Specification document [OWL 2
    Structural Specification]. ..

    ... The OWL 2 New Features and Rationale document [OWL 2 New
    Features and Rationale] describes all the new features of OWL 2 ...

    ... (see Section 2.1 of the OWL 2 Conformance document [OWL 2
    Conformance] ...

In that last case, you have to click on the link to the bibliography,
click on the link to Conformance, then scroll down to find Section 2.1.
That's crazy.

How about this:

   1.  Let's avoid "the OWL 2 <something> document"; just give the
       title, and make it a hyperlink directly to the document (which
       helps make it clear it's a title).  For sections, link to the
       section.

   2.  Pick short (necessarily cryptic) names for each document, for use
       in linking to the bibliography.  My suggestions:

         OWL2SS     Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax
                              (or OWL2STRUC)
         OWL2DS     Direct Semantics      
         OWL2RS     RDF-Based Semantics   
         OWL2CONF   Conformance
         OWL2MAP    Mapping to RDF Graphs     (or OWL2RDF)
         OWL2XML    XML Serialization
         OWL2PROF   Profiles
         OWL2QRG    Quick Reference Guide
         OWL2NFR    New Features and Rationale  (or OWL2NEWF)
         OWL2MANC   Manchester Syntax     (or OWL2MS)

So the above bits would look like this (where I've used "_" to try to
show where parts are links):

    ... is defined in _OWL 2 Structural Specification_ [OWL2SS] ..

    ... _OWL 2 New Features and Rationale_ [OWL2NFR] describes all the
    new features of OWL 2 ...

    ... (see _OWL 2 Conformance, Section 2.1_ [OWL2CONF]) ...

Okay?  Can we do something like this?

     -- Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 05:16:13 UTC