- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 16:39:41 +0100
- To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Hi Joćo Paulo, On 02/05/13 16:19, Joćo Paulo Almeida wrote: > Dear All, > > Thanks for you comments. > I attach a new version of the diagram. Great, thanks again. > I've addressed most of the comments: > > - Single colon is used instead of '::' to represent namespace scoping > - vcard is no longer the range of siteAddress (in the absence of a range, > I've used rdf:Resource, is this OK?) I would prefer a greyed-out vcard class. The point is that we recommend use of vcard but don't require it. I realize this is not part of UML but the point of this diagram is not to be UML but to be a useful guide to help people understand ORG :) I guess an alternative would be a caption under your rdfs:Resource box stating that use of vcard:VCard is suggested. > - navigability is always shown > - foaf:Group is aligned vertically with foaf:Agent > > With respect to the aesthetics, I am not in favour of using rounded > corners, as this would no longer be a UML diagram. I am in favour of > standards :-) > Drop shadows are not possible in the tool. > > About clickable parts, this is just a matter of making an area map in > html. I can do that once we agree on the diagram. > > Regards, > Joćo Paulo Cheers, Dave > On 1/5/13 10:00 AM, "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > >> Dave, Joćo, >> >> Comments on the proposed diagram, in addition to what Dave said: >> >> 1. I understand the semantics of the distinction between gray and white >> boxes. But why is the Organization class colored differently? Just >> because it's the most important one? If that's the case, its size and >> central position are sufficient to communicate that, and it doesn't need >> to have a different color. >> >> 2. I agree with Dave that the diagram looks a bit bland. Can it be made a >> bit more visually interesting? Rounded corners, drop shadows, anything? >> >> 3. Personally I would prefer if the connections that have inverses would >> have arrows on both ends, rather than on no end. >> >> 4. I think the member connection and the hasMember connection both lack >> an arrow. >> >> 5. Minor point regarding the layout: Organization, foaf:Group and >> foaf:Person have something in common: They are all subclasses of >> foaf:Person. But in the arrangement, they have nothing in common, and are >> positioned quite differently. >> >> 6. The colors besides black and white should be picked, if possible, from >> the color palette already used in http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ , to >> make it fit in nicely. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >> >> On 1 May 2013, at 12:35, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Joćo Paulo, >>> >>> [Sorry to be slow to respond, just too busy :(] >>> >>> Many thanks for this. It is definitely an improvement over the earlier >>> version. Does this technology offer clickable images as as well? >>> >>> The diagram shows the range of org:siteAddress as being vcard:Vcard yet >>> this is no longer the case, vcard is now simply a recommended option. >>> With your tooling is it possible to grey out boxes? >>> >>> The use of double '::' is incorrect from an RDF point of view. With >>> your tooling is it possible to use single ':' instead? >>> >>> Aesthetically it's a little uninspiring but acceptable. >>> >>> Do other working members having opinions on whether to adopt this (with >>> above tweaks) in preference the current diagram? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> On 18/04/13 15:15, Joćo Paulo Almeida wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Please find attached our proposal of diagram for ORG. It is a complete >>>> diagram (only a transitive derived property is ommitted, the rest is >>>> all >>>> in). >>>> >>>> I've tried to address the issue that Dave raised with respect to the >>>> representation of attributes. >>>> >>>> Of course, we could produce a simplified version (leaving some elements >>>> out). >>>> >>>> We have followed a number of conventions to represent the ontology in >>>> UML: >>>> - Classes in white are imported from other vocabularies >>>> - Navigability is only shown (arrows) in case the property does not >>>> have >>>> an inverse >>>> - Non-disjoint subclass specialisation is shown with different arrows >>>> to >>>> favour correct interpretation >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Joćo Paulo >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/4/13 9:02 AM, "Joćo Paulo Almeida" <jpalmeida@ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Phil, >>>>> >>>>> We can do that. That is, we'll make a proposal and bring it to the >>>>> group. >>>>> I hope we'll be able to address the concern Dave raised with respect >>>>> to >>>>> the diagram we produced earlier for ORG, and I believe we can build >>>>> consensus on some form of graphical representation. >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry I was not able to join in the discussion today on >>>>> ORG/RegOrg. >>>>> This is because Brazil is -5 hours with respect to Dublin time. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Joćo Paulo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/4/13 7:06 AM, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> During the face to face meeting (still ongoing), we've been >>>>>> discussing a >>>>>> comment concerning the diagram for the ORG ontology. This highlights >>>>>> the >>>>>> fact that all those of us who have created diagrams for our vocabs >>>>>> use >>>>>> different tools and create different-looking diagrams. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ideally, we'd like them all to have the same look and feel. And even >>>>>> more ideally we'd like the diagrams to be clickable so you can jump >>>>>> to >>>>>> the relevant definitions etc. That's a nice to have, not a >>>>>> requirement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have the tooling and/or the time to help create these please? >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil Archer >>>>>> W3C eGovernment >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/egov/ >>>>>> >>>>>> http://philarcher.org >>>>>> +44 (0)7887 767755 >>>>>> @philarcher1 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 15:40:11 UTC