- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:07:55 +0000
- To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
Hi Joćo Paulo, I don't feel strongly either way. Data Cube is complicated by the existence of some property hierarchies which I'm not sure how they would work in the UML. My personal feeling is that the Data Cube diagram is good enough to be suggestive, we've had no feedback on it, so I'm inclined to leave it as is. However, if the working group would prefer uniformity of graphical style (which has some merit), and if you think it is possible to redo the Data Cube diagram without it being too complex (or too much work for you), then I'd be happy to switch to another version. Cheers, Dave On 21/11/13 14:07, Joćo Paulo Almeida wrote: > Dear Ghislain, > > I will check whether the same conventions I¹ve used to produce the ORG > diagram can be used for the other vocabs. (I would like to know whether > the editors find this a good idea in the first place, because otherwise it > would be a waste of effort on my side.) > > Regards, > Joćo Paulo > > On 21/11/13, 8:42 AM, "Ghislain Atemezing" <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr> > wrote: > >> On 21/11/2013 11:27, Joćo Paulo Almeida wrote: >>> I believe the diagram has good value to improve the understandability >>> of the work, so this is why I hope it can be incorporated in the text, >>> as it should help the recommendation to have higher impact, >> And I guess it could be also used for the other vocabs the group is >> producing ? at least the REC ones? For more consistency..and so on >> >> Ghislain >> >> -- >> Ghislain Atemezing >> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department >> Campus SophiaTech >> 450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France. >> e-mail: auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com >> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178 >> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 >> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 17:08:28 UTC