Re: [OEP] The n-ary relations draft is ready for outside review

I just don't think any of us are in a position to tell whether this is a 
reasonable compromise or not.  A general rule of tutorial writing is to 
put advanced material in a clearly supplemental spot, so that novices 
don't find it distracting.  Imagine teaching an elementary-schooler about 
the formula "rate x time = distance" by saying:

We will discuss how to calculate the distance you travelled given the 
speed at which you travelled and the time you spent travelling.  This 
avoids using relativistic frames of reference for reasons discussed in the 
final section.

So, *I* think what we had was a reasonable compromise, I don't think the 
document shoudl mention RDF reification at all, but I'm not the editor.

-Chris

Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
Email: welty@watson.ibm.com
Web: http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/



Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU> 
Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
08/02/2005 03:22 PM

To
"Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
cc
swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Subject
Re: [OEP] The n-ary relations draft is ready for outside review







Ralph,

Thank you very much for your comments! We'll integrate them and reply 
with questions, etc. once we get the second review from Guus -- it's 
just easier to do this in one go.

> I think it might be useful to mention RDF reification much earlier;
> perhaps with a brief sentence at the end of General Issues something
> like "These patterns avoid using RDF reification for reasons
> discussed in the final section."

Chris, I think this is a reasonable compromise. It puts the pointer 
in for those who do get confused about this, without obscuring the 
content and putting hard issues first for more naive users. What do 
you think?

Natasha
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2005 14:53:31 UTC