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

Re: Closing action-306: Comments on the QRG

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:13:40 +0100
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660903171113k637f57c9r10c4420d54071c20@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
2009/3/17 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Closing action-306: Comments on the QRG
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:22:16 +0100
>> 2009/3/17 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>>> For the records, these were my comments on the QRG document. In fact,
>>> these comments went to Jie before I took the action last week, and the
>>> current wiki page reflects most of the proposed changes already. But as
>>> there was a public action on me, it is better to have that on record, too.
>>> Ivan
>>> - This is a matter of taste, of course. Personally, I find the gray*
>> indeed
>>> 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.
> A pointer to the relevant discussion would be very helpful.

Peter, as a result of our discussions you may look for example at the
QRG  Editor's Note: To do list at  [1]
and also compare Status of this Document (dec) in [1]  to Status of
this Document  at [2]

If you don't remember it, you are free to track the other records. On
my side, I have a few time available and would prefer to spend it at a
more productive work, such as improving NF&R (e.g. the UCs section to
address some member's comment).
Anyway, the user documents discussions have most often been  less
formal, have taken place at the end of the meetings, and as you know,
not always been scribed. But of course concerned authors remember it.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Quick_Reference_Guide&oldid=16930
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Quick_Reference_Guide&diff=19486&oldid=17440


>> 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
> peter

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 18:14:20 UTC

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