W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2019

Re: [dxwg] Ambiguous relationship in Figure 1 (#687)

From: Kam Hay Fung via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 02:31:22 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-533844506-1569119481-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
They look much clearer in Figs 2-11 (excl 4). Nice work.

Here are some feedback:

**dct:conformsTo**
In Figure 2, "`dct:confromsTo`" should be "`dct:conformsTo`".
In Figure 11, both "`dct:conformsTo`" and "`conforms to`" appear. Do they mean the same thing?

**dct:format**
It inconsistently appears in many forms, e.g.
- "`dct:format`" (Figure 2)
- "`has format`" (Figure 3)
- "`format`" (Figure 7)

Please cross check all the diagrams and use the single form.

"`dct:hasFormat`", in Dublin Core (https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#terms-hasFormat) reads better as a complete sentence in the unidirectional relationship
`A--dct:hasFormat-->B` than `A--dct:format-->B`. 
However, "`dct:hasFormat`" seems to have a slightly different meaning.

**Redundant Legends**
It seems that Figures 12-17 still have the legends which are now available in Figure 1. They can be removed.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kamhayfung
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/687#issuecomment-533844506 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 22 September 2019 02:31:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:57 UTC