Re: changes to document overview (done)

On 11 Mar 2009, at 15:23, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> On 11 Mar 2009, at 14:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> 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 think it provokes questions we don't want asked, like "so, what
>> *is* the intersection of them all! why isn't *that* named?!?"
>>
>> Let's avoid that, if we can.
>
> More of the story....
>
> My first/larger version...
>
>     http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-profiles-doc
>
> was aimed at answering that question.

That seems like a reasonable tool. But like the DL navigator, I'd  
prefer that it wasn't part of our docs.

It's sort of an advanced notion and I'd prefer not to get people  
*more* confused.

>   I was/am hoping to let people
> click on any area and see which features are available.

Yeah, that sounds ok. But, really, the focus on features/constructs  
is a bit misleading. A good first approximation but not good to  
emphasize *too* heavily.

For example, OWL QL and RL have different constructs legal on the LHS  
and RHS of axioms...

> I imagine this
> diagram would go into Profiles, and producing it is just some  
> mechanical
> work on stuff that's already in there.
>
> I thought maybe the smaller version in Overview might link to the  
> bigger
> version in Profiles, when it's ready.
>
> In other words, I think people will ask the question anyway, and I'd
> like to have an answer ready.

I'd prefer that these sorts of (very helpful) tools be separate.  
We're already info-overloading people. I really fear we're back to  
where we were with OWL 1...lots of docs...*too* many user facing docs  
with relatively subtle differences in purpose (though I think we've  
done better with overlap).

I'm not sold on the overview, frankly. I'm going along with it at the  
moment, but I feel like we're engineering the document suite a little  
narrowly. While I know it's politically impossible, I'd love to roll  
back to just the normative documents, with a brief intro, and give  
everything else back to their authors and let them have at it.

Anyway. Just a bit of whining. I know nothing will change (or we'll  
just keep adding more and more).

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:40:13 UTC