- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 22:21:23 +0200
- To: "Jie Bao" <baojie@gmail.com>, "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A001394128@judith.fzi.de>
>-----Original Message----- >From: Jie Bao [mailto:baojie@gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:01 PM >To: Peter F.Patel-Schneider; Michael Schneider >Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org >Subject: Re: OWL Full Features in QRG > >Peter and Michael > >Will you object to replace section 4.2 with the one "Additional >Vocabulary in OWL 2 RDF Syntax" on the discussion page? > >http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#Additional_Vo >cabulary_in_OWL_2_RDF_Syntax > >Jie Well, since I am asked... What would I expect from such a card (I admit that I did not ponder much about QRG in the past)? Thinking more generally, what I would expect from other languages (a card for HTML for example), yes, I think as long as it is technically possible (enough space on the card), I would want to have /all/ language features mentioned on it, even if they are "rarely used", "legacy" or even "deprecated". Because it is quite possible that I want to / have to use this card when working with old ontologies. I wouldn't really want to have the "special" features in a separate section, but rather along with the other features belonging to the same category. But I would appreciate if there were a *small* marker placed nearby a feature telling what's special with them. For example, if a term is deprecated, I would consider this relevant knowledge for my work, e.g., even if I were required to leave the old term in the ontology for the moment, I won't add additional occurrences, and could plan for a future redesign. Such a card is good for learning by doing: One looks something up once or twice when one stumbles over it, and afterwards one knows about it and its special aspects, but still have the helpful card around, if one forgets about it again. But then it would be un-helpful if some terms were not mentioned in the card. So to summarize: I would keep the terms in, and even along with the other terms (no separate section), but with some marker ("D" = "deprecated" for DataRange, "L" = "legacy" for most others, perhaps really "R" = "RDF-Based Semantics" for OntologyProperty (not clear on this)). Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider ======================================================================= FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus =======================================================================
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 20:22:05 UTC