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

Re: Vocabulary visualization - can you help?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 14:00:57 +0100
Message-Id: <B8265C6E-43C7-449D-AB85-19BA78A313B0@cyganiak.de>
To: "GLD Working Group, (Government Linked Data)" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Dave, Joćo,

Comments on the proposed diagram, in addition to what Dave said:

1. I understand the semantics of the distinction between gray and white boxes. But why is the Organization class colored differently? Just because it's the most important one? If that's the case, its size and central position are sufficient to communicate that, and it doesn't need to have a different color.

2. I agree with Dave that the diagram looks a bit bland. Can it be made a bit more visually interesting? Rounded corners, drop shadows, anything?

3. Personally I would prefer if the connections that have inverses would have arrows on both ends, rather than on no end.

4. I think the member connection and the hasMember connection both lack an arrow.

5. Minor point regarding the layout: Organization, foaf:Group and foaf:Person have something in common: They are all subclasses of foaf:Person. But in the arrangement, they have nothing in common, and are positioned quite differently.

6. The colors besides black and white should be picked, if possible, from the color palette already used in http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ , to make it fit in nicely.

Best,
Richard


On 1 May 2013, at 12:35, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 13:01:25 UTC

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