W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Vocabulary visualization - can you help?

From: Joćo Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:01:26 -0300
To: "GLD Working Group, (Government Linked Data)" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE85818E.79A26%jpalmeida@ieee.org>
Dear All,

I would like to remind you of the ORG diagram I produced in May. I would
like to see it in the document.

Joćo Paulo

On 2/5/13 12:19 PM, "Joćo Paulo Almeida" <jpalmeida@ieee.org> wrote:

>Dear All,
>Thanks for you comments.
>I attach a new version of the diagram.
>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?)
>- 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.
>Joćo Paulo
>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
>>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
>>positioned quite differently.
>>6. The colors besides black and white should be picked, if possible,
>>the color palette already used in http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ , to
>>make it fit in nicely.
>>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
>>>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
>>>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
>>>> 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
>>>> out).
>>>> We have followed a number of conventions to represent the ontology in
>>>> - Classes in white are imported from other vocabularies
>>>> - Navigability is only shown (arrows) in case the property does not
>>>> an inverse
>>>> - Non-disjoint subclass specialisation is shown with different arrows
>>>> 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
>>>>> I hope we'll be able to address the concern Dave raised with respect
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> fact that all those of us who have created diagrams for our vocabs
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> the relevant definitions etc. That's a nice to have, not a
>>>>>> 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

(image/png attachment: OrgOntology20130502_1_.png)

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 15:02:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:09 UTC