- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:56:41 +0200
- To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- CC: public-lod@w3.org, public-semweb-ui@w3.org
Interesting discussion! On 25/6/09 14:15, Simon Reinhardt wrote: > Hi > > Bernhard Schandl wrote: >> [1] <http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/schandl/2009/06/domain+range_bad.png> >> [2] <http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/schandl/2009/06/domain+range_better.png> > > I like this. The former has several problems anyway: you have to repeat > properties if they can hold between several classes [3] and you have to > draw lines connecting lines for expressing sub-properties or inverse > properties [4] which looks rather confusing and is not supported by many > visual modelling tools. Yeah, my [4] is at my threshold of tolerance for chaos in a diagram. I wanted a way to show the core of the FOAF spec in a picture, so tried (despite similar concerns to those mentioned in this thread) the style of putting domain/range directly in an instance-like style. In http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/1856478164/ ([4]) I try to do too many things at once: * show the classes that each property is used with * show sub-property relationships * show sub-class relationships * show some typical properties * show attachment points for "friends of FOAF" namespaces (DOAP, SIOC, DC, Geo etc), with classes and with sample properties This is a lot of information. I did try to make a "gradual reveal" slideshow version, building up from something simple. It wasn't great. The layout was done by hand to minimise crossovers, and looking at it, I think the whole structure could be twisted/stretched to be more evenly presented. It was fiddly to do though. A sample of instance-data would probably convey most of the same information about domain/range, and would allow subclasses reasonably too. Sub-property would remain hard... If anyone wants to mess around with the FOAF example, source data in OmniGraffle format is here and also in SVG: just do "svn co http://svn.foaf-project.org/foaf/trunk/xmlns.com/htdocs/foaf/spec/images/" > [3] also shows a combination of the two > problems: if you draw several lines for one property, you have to > connect sub-properties to each of them or to an arbitrarily selected > one. The only downside I see here is that adding ellipses for properties > makes the diagram a bit more bloated. I don't find [3] very readable. There was another Harmony ABC diagram (I think from Carl Lagoze) in http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/harmony/docs/abc/abc_draft.html#Simple%20Rules that uses dotted lines for implied types, I think this can work well in instance level presentations. cheers, Dan > Regards, > Simon > > > [3] http://metadata.net/harmony/ABC_Class_Hierarchy_with_Properties.gif > [4] http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/1856478164/ (sorry Dan!) > >
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 06:57:26 UTC