Re: Some minor issue on DUV

Hi Riccardo,

Thank you for your feedback.  My comments below:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Riccardo Albertoni <
albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> wrote:

> Dear Bernadette, Eric and Sumit,
>
> Thanks for your work on DUV.
>
> I took a quick look at the data usage document and I have  some very minor
> issues, you might want to consider
>
> -section 2,  namespace table:  the dqv namespace is missing;
>
> >> dqv namespace added.


> -section 7.4, duv:UsageTool has rdfs:label "Usage Actor";
>
> >> label corrected.

> - Four open issues associated to  DUV in the tracking system, but  only
> one is  mentioned in  the  DUV Draft.  Are you  going to include the other
>  issues in the DUV draft?
>
>> I looked through the open issues and only 219 seemed relevant to DUV.
The others looked mis-assigned.  I saw an issue on open and closed data.
I'd feel more comfortable talking about this as a working group than adding
it in the document.  It doesn't seem like a DUV issue.

>
> - please consider to mention  the namespaces in front of each  class
> depicted in the class diagram. Otherwise, when reading the document on B/W
> printed paper,    It is  impossible to figure out  the vocabulary from
> which the classes are borrowed  ... I know,..    I am probably one of the
> last persons reading things on B/W paper ... I guess  people reading the
> DUV with B/W ebook reader might have the same problem ;)
>
> >> I added namespaces.  Good point about the B/W printouts.


> A further comment on the diagram:
>  Some  classes are repeated  more than once  (e.g., skos:Concept,
> oa:Annotation, foaf:Agent). Probably, that is  because the DUV diagram is
> not a "planar graph" and  if you do not duplicate classes you get a diagram
> with very intricate connections.
>   Even If I can guess the reasons why you have duplicated classes in the
> diagram,  I am not  sure that I am comfortable with this choice.  I might
> be wrong but  figuring out that a same class is represented three times
>  might be  as difficult as  or even more difficult that digging into a
> diagram with intricate connections ...
>
>
>> Hmmmm Yes we did this to make the diagram easier on the eyes.  Going
back to old school techniques we used to make connections across diagrams
with labeled pointers the labels sat inside a circle at the end of the
line.  Would something like that be confusing?

>
> Cheers,
> Riccardo
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Riccardo Albertoni
> Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico
> Magenes"
> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
> via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA
> tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660
> e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
> www: http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni
> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
> FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
>