W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2004

Re: SWP Vocabulary Diagram

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:31:48 +0300
Message-Id: <30F36648-8E9E-11D8-AFC8-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: "ext Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>

On Apr 14, 2004, at 15:30, ext Chris Bizer wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have drawn an entity-relation diagram visualizing our vocabulary. I 
> think
> ER is a useful and kind of minimal notation for expressing classes,
> relations and cardinalities.
>
>
>
> Are there any preferences on using a different notation?

Works for me.

>
> Is the diagram all right?

Looks correct insofar as the RDF schemas are concerned (noting that
it is more constrained than the schemas since certain cardinalities
are not specified in the schemas -- Jeremy, if you could indicate
how to do that property, since I seem to have gotten it wrong
earlier, feel free to do so).

1. Do we wish to require swp:signatureMethod if swp:signature is 
defined?
2. Do we wish to limit a warrant to a single signature?


BTW, the updated RDF schema for SWP reflecting the same vocabulary as
Chris' diagram is attached.

I'm hoping that this is now the final vocabulary. Yes?

Patrick




>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> <SwpVocab02.png><SwpVocab02.gif>

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com


Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 01:31:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:42 GMT