Re: Vocabulary visualization - can you help?

Dear All,

I would like to remind you of the ORG diagram I produced in May. I would
like to see it in the document.

Regards,
João Paulo




On 2/5/13 12:19 PM, "João Paulo Almeida" <jpalmeida@ieee.org> wrote:

>Dear All,
>
>Thanks for you comments.
>I attach a new version of the diagram.
>
>I've addressed most of the comments:
>
>- Single colon is used instead of '::' to represent namespace scoping
>- vcard is no longer the range of siteAddress (in the absence of a range,
>I've used rdf:Resource, is this OK?)
>- navigability is always shown
>- foaf:Group is aligned vertically with foaf:Agent
>
>With respect to the aesthetics, I am not in favour of using rounded
>corners, as this would no longer be a UML diagram. I am in favour of
>standards :-)
>Drop shadows are not possible in the tool.
>
>About clickable parts, this is just a matter of making an area map in
>html. I can do that once we agree on the diagram.
>
>Regards,
>João Paulo
>
>
>
>
>On 1/5/13 10:00 AM, "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>
>>Dave, João,
>>
>>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 João 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, João 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,
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>