- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:59:41 +0100
- 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>
- Message-ID: <49BFD6FD.9060806@w3.org>
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