Re: Vocabulary visualization - can you help?

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 all
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 elements
out).

We have followed a number of conventions to represent the ontology in UML:
- Classes in white are imported from other vocabularies
- Navigability is only shown (arrows) in case the property does not have
an inverse
- Non-disjoint subclass specialisation is shown with different arrows to
favour correct interpretation


Best regards,
João Paulo


On 12/4/13 9:02 AM, "João Paulo Almeida" <jpalmeida@ieee.org> wrote:

>Dear Phil,
>
>We can do that. That is, we'll make a proposal and bring it to the group.
>I hope we'll be able to address the concern Dave raised with respect to
>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 ORG/RegOrg.
>This is because Brazil is -5 hours with respect to Dublin time.
>
>Regards,
>João 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 highlights the
>>fact that all those of us who have created diagrams for our vocabs use
>>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 to
>>the relevant definitions etc. That's a nice to have, not a requirement.
>>
>>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