W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Vocabulary visualization - can you help?

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 12:35:14 +0100
Message-ID: <5180FDF2.8090809@gmail.com>
To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Hi Joćo Paulo,

[Sorry to be slow to respond, just too busy :(]

Many thanks for this. It is definitely an improvement over the earlier 
version. Does this technology offer clickable images as as well?

The diagram shows the range of org:siteAddress as being vcard:Vcard yet 
this is no longer the case, vcard is now simply a recommended option. 
With your tooling is it possible to grey out boxes?

The use of double '::' is incorrect from an RDF point of view. With your 
tooling is it possible to use single ':' instead?

Aesthetically it's a little uninspiring but acceptable.

Do other working members having opinions on whether to adopt this (with 
above tweaks) in preference the current diagram?

Dave

On 18/04/13 15:15, Joćo Paulo Almeida wrote:
> 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,
> Joćo Paulo
>
>
> On 12/4/13 9:02 AM, "Joćo 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,
>> Joćo 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
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 11:35:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:08 UTC