W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Closing action-306: Comments on the QRG

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:59:41 +0100
Message-ID: <49BFD6FD.9060806@w3.org>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>


Christine Golbreich wrote:
> 
>> background shading a little bit disturbing. I wonder what other
>> typographic trick we should use to denote OWL 2 specific features, but
>> something less disturbing would be nice. (Maybe some lighter colour, for
>> example?) I also wonder whether we could find a trick (eg, by chaning
>> the css values via a javascript?) so that I could choose _not_ to
>> highlight the differences. It is of course great to have those clearly
>> denoted for those who make a transition from OWL 1 but, after a while,
>> these differences become without interest, and I might prefer not to
>> have them highlighted at all. The same holds for the '?' links that
>> refer to the NF&R; once people are hooked on OWL 2, those issues become
>> moot, and the really important reference will be the primer (in my
>> view...) and not that one...
> 
> Of course, I do not agree with this view, I think that pointing to the
> *new* features is helpful  + harmless.
> Moreover, if you check the record, if I remember correctly, Jie was
> asked earlier at a telecon to put these links in the QRG.
> Also in fact, Jie sent me comments on the NF&R last week before I took
> an action asking to add some missing features in NF&R so as to allow
> to point to them. I have now precisely finished to add them.
> 

Christine, what I asked is the possibility to switch those highlights
and links off and not to remove them. The fact of the matter is that we
should all wish that, _in a few years_, the NF&R document would become
much less important simply because OWL 2 would become the widely used
technology and new users would not even be interested what is from OWL 1
and what is from OWL 2. For those users any differentiation between OWL
1 and OWL 2 would become an unnecessary and uninteresting issue. (I am
not sure I would be interested in a manual on Python 2.6 that would
still highlight the differences between Python 2.6 and, say, 1.2. Python
1.2 was used 10-15 years ago and nobody uses _that_ any more)

This is not some sort of a value judgement on the NF&R document.

Ivan



> Christine
>> --
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 16:59:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:10 UTC