Re: changes to document overview (done)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: changes to document overview (done)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:59:13 -0400

> 
> You can see a color-coded diff of everyone's changes since the F2F
> here:
>    http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/document_overview_changes.html
> 
> (it rather bizarrely comes out looking like a wiki page...)
> 
> I didn't do exactly what I said I'd do, but I hope it's close enough.
> 
> I think I did two things Peter didn't want: adding a table of syntaxes
> and a Venn diagram of profiles.  I figured we can decide about them at
> the meeting more easily if we can see what they look like in the
> document.  I'm not particularly attached to the table of syntaxes, but I
> do think the Venn diagram will really help people feel more comfortable
> with the profiles.

I think that the table of syntaxes is benign.

However, the Venn diagram is, to my mind, a prime example of "gratuitous
graphics" - graphics that don't add any information and only detract
from the message.  However, the detraction is not enough to make me
scream.

> I also added a section "Modifications", which has only:
> 
>      Editor's Note: This section needs to be filled in carefully,
>      enumerating all the cases where an OWL 1 ontology will have
>      different semantics in OWL 2. The narrowness of the cases is
>      expected to underscore the degree to which OWL 2 is substantially
>      compatible with OWL 1.
> 
> I'm fine leaving it like that for now, but I feel pretty strongly we
> need to provide this text by LC.

OK, I guess.

> I didn't make any of Christine's changes.  I'm ambivalent about most of
> them.  In some cases -- like linking to the Wiki vs linking to the TR --
> I'm deeply conflicted, with strong feelings, but I really don't know the
> right answer, so I could live with it either way.
> 
> Anyway, I'm happy with the document going to FPWD now (with or without
> the syntax table, with the links/references all made consistant).  I
> understand if folks don't have enough time to review it before the
> meeting -- I guess we'll see how it goes.
> 
>       -- Sandro

I'm OK with FPWD as is.  

peter

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 14:47:34 UTC