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

Re: Closing action-306: Comments on the QRG

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:59:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090317.145916.256180718.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: cgolbrei@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Closing action-306: Comments on the QRG
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:13:40 +0100

> 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).

As far as I can find, the only allusions to linking from QRG to NF&R
near the timestamp of relevant editor's note are from the Mandelieu F2F 

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-10-23#line0245

Elisa Kendall: Intent is to hyperlink everything (functional syntax, RDF syntax, etc.) ←
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-10-23#line0276

Christine Golbreich: LInk to requirements document instead? ←
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-10-24#line1018

Christine Golbreich: i think the name of the document are details to be agreed later ←
... we have to agreed on the principle on this content to be working draft document and I just want to answer ←
... I agree it would be highly useful to have this section with the quick refernece guide ←
... it would help to access the whole language and to caption of the new features ←
... having the sue cases somewhere it would be useful, with links from the documents ←
... from the quick reference guide there will be links tot he spec, from the features to the use cases ←
Bijan Parsia: I'm confused...section 5 doesn't cover all of the language..so the quick reference guide can't really use it ←
... and I am not sure about the use cases to be updated ←

These do not seem to count as a defense against Ivan's criticism.

> 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

> 
> Christine
> 
>>> 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
> -- 
> Christine

peter
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 18:58:16 UTC

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