Re: Review of QRG (Action 307)

Hello Bijan

1) Organization
I suggested an organization that seems me more helpful for users, but
left it up to the authors
Another reviewer (at least) does not like so much the organization
either, and it does not really seem "based on a misunderstanding of
the purpose of the QRG", see below [1]:

> Organization:
  I disagree with putting class/... axioms in the ... sections but not
  enough to agitate for a reorganization.

2) As for the abstract, according to review [1]:

Abstract (2nd paragraph):
  Much better would be:
    This document provides a quick reference guide to the OWL 2 language.

In accordance to this abstract, and since SS&FS is a primary  (and
normative) reference document of the OWL 2 language, I suggested to
put the Syntax first in the 2nd paragraph of Status of this Document.

3)
> It is not my understanding that the QRG has anything to do with other
> documents
[..]
> The purpose of the QRG is to be
> a simple, one page, doublesided reference card/cheat sheet.
[..]

several of us have understood that the QRG may serve as a convenient
entry that points to  the other documents, cf. the 2nd paragraph
"Status of this Document" of QRG :

"The Quick Reference Guide provides links into other documents that it
is intended to complement, particularly the OWL 2 Primer for examples,
the Syntax document for more details of syntax, and the New Features
and Rationale document for selected feature descriptions."

4) > I would vigorously oppose any scope creep or retargeting.

As far as I am concerned, I did not propose  "any scope creep or
retargeting" in my review, but simply suggested  a *possible*
reorganization of the current content of the document.

Hope it's still possible to make a comment in a review, without
vigorous reaction.

5)
> based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the QRG, then I would urge
> reconsideration of that feedback.

My review is based on the wiki version available online for review.
Sorry, but I don't see any reason to reconsider it.

Christine

[ ]

2009/3/27 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>:
> On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:13, Christine Golbreich wrote:
>
>> Status (2nd paragraph)
>> --------------
>> - it would be better tro have Syntax first and Primer next, since it's
>> a guide to the different documents and Syntax has normative content.
>> - suggested sentence like:
>> -> The Quick Reference Guide provides links into other documents that
>> it is intended to complement, particularly  the Syntax document for
>> more details of syntax, the OWL 2 Primer for examples, and the New
>> Features and Rationale document for the new features of OWL 2 .
>>
>> Structure of the document
>> ---------------------------------
>> I'm not convinced by the proposed strutcuration. Since QRG is a guide
>> to other documents (IMO)
>
> It is not my understanding that the QRG has anything to do with other
> documents, at least, in its primary purpose. The purpose of the QRG is to be
> a simple, one page, doublesided reference card/cheat sheet.
>
> It was directly modeled on:
>        http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/_file_directory_/resources/94.pdf
>
> I would vigorously oppose any scope creep or retargeting.
>
> I hope this clarifies matters for you, Christine. I don't know if this
> information changes your review in any way, but if the restructuring is
> based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the QRG, then I would urge
> reconsideration of that feedback.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Friday, 27 March 2009 17:17:05 UTC