- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:52:27 +0000
- To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
- Cc: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, "Purohit, Sumit" <Sumit.Purohit@pnnl.gov>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Ah, I think we all came up with the same solution, zooming in to different sections and describing them. The ORG ontology spec just has one digram but the prose is clearly broken up into sections (http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/). On 11/12/2015 16:06, Eric Stephan wrote: > Okay I'm beginning to understand the rationale behind your model synopsis > paragraph concept. I really like this, and will find a way to do as you > suggested. > > Phil because you raised the same concern, will the supplemental paragraph > address help address this issue? > > Thank you, > > Eric > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Hi, Eric, >> >> I agree with the 3 points. >> >> The diagram is a visualization. But, at the same time, it could give a >> better understanding of all stuff together. Maybe it needs all the building >> blocks but not all the properties. In that sense, is why I,ve talked about >> the text explanation. The diagram is the one that readers will try to >> understand the model.. >> >> Cheers, Laufer >> >> >> --- >> >> . . . .. . . >> . . . .. >> . .. . >> >> >> >> Em 11/12/2015 13:40, Eric Stephan escreveu: >> >> Hi Laufer, >> >> Many thanks for your feedback. I responded to Phil earlier, because he >> had the same concern. For documents such as these I've always thought of >> the diagrams as a general orientation to the vocabulary, not all >> properties and classes will be shown in the diagram. I was thinking of >> this as being more conceptual than exact. >> >> So I guess I'm saying: >> 1) Specification needs to be complete and include all the detail including >> all the properties in the model picture and additional needed for the >> vocabulary. >> 2) TTL needs to match specification. >> 3) Model picture is more of a visual reference and can be missing some >> properties and classes. >> >> I guess another option is breaking the picture an overview and then >> detailed view of citation, usage, and feedback. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Eric S >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi, Eric, Bernadette and Sumit, >>> >>> First of all, congratulations for the document! >>> >>> 1. Here are the list of things that I saw in the diagram and not in the >>> specification: >>> >>> cito:hasCitingEntity >>> duv:hasCitationCreator >>> oa:hasTarget >>> duv:hasUserFeedback >>> duv:hasRating >>> duv:hasUsageType >>> duv:hasUsage >>> duv:perfomedBy >>> duv:performs >>> duv:hasUsageTool >>> duv:hasRole >>> >>> 2. Here are the list of the things that I saw in the specification and >>> not in the diagram (not sure if all of them really should appear in the >>> diagram): >>> >>> duv:hasProducer >>> duv:hasDistributor >>> duv:edition >>> duv:hasAccessInformation >>> duv:developedBy >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. I guess that some names that were changed were not updated in the >>> document text: >>> >>> duv:Feedback --> duv:UserFeedback >>> duv:author --> duv:hasAuthor >>> >>> 4. I think (only my opinion) that a reader could be confused reading the >>> examples before the vocabulary overview. Maybe the order of the two >>> sections could be changed. >>> >>> 5. I miss an "informal text serialization" explaining the diagram. >>> >>> Thanks a lot. >>> >>> Cheers, Laufer >>> >>> -- >>> >>> . . . .. . . >>> . . . .. >>> . .. . >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 11 December 2015 16:52:29 UTC