W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2011

Re: GraphViz and SKOS... Conventions for visual schemas drafted from SKOS files?

From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:21:31 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimgRQ7GGPS7dSEZnzF3wQH71dimNkhtohNb5Hyu@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christophe Dupriez <dupriez@destin.be>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
EQ-types  might be represented as multiple  lined variants, by analogy to =
≃ ≣ ≡ etc.

Related terms can appropriately be represented by a line with arrows on each

I haven't done a lit review on how well this visualization style might work,
let alone done any tests, so these are thoughts off the top of my head.  I
think I might try generating some samples (if the code hasn't bit-rotted)
 even if I don't have time to jump through IRB hoops.

There may be pre-defined UML notation that can be punned (related could be
lines with no arrows), but I'm not sure how cognitively inutitive a lot of
UML notation is.


[1]  Ironically, in the machine translation of LCSH to a thesaurus, the
algorithm used to decide whether to generate an RT link, or a BT link, was:

When there is a see also link from A to B {
     if there is  a see also link from B to A {
           add an RT link from A to B
           add an RT link from B to A
     } else {
           add a BT link from A to B

This would have worked perfectly if the data had been entered entirely in
accordance with policy, but since each see also reference was keyed in
separately, any errors cause RT links to be turned in to much more
semantically constrained BT links.
Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 19:22:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:14 UTC