- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 12:35:14 +0100
- 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