Re: Comments on posters and new template + ITS elipse (Re: Updated validation poster (Was: Re: [Minutes] MLW-LT call 2013-02-20, plus doodle for luxembourg prep call))

Fortunately I was able to easily overlay a semi-transparent mask over the
segment of the ellipse that does not relate to my scenario and I then just
added a bright outline around the remaining segment to highlight where my
use case resides within the overall process. I have it as a
"legend/contextual map" in the top right-hand corner of my revised (but not
shared yet) poster.


On 21 Feb 2013, at 22:44, "Dave Lewis" <> wrote:

> Hi Yves,
> You are correct abut the details. It wasn't the intention that the
> sectors steps or the external formats labels are in any way canonical.
> People should adapt the graphic to their particular workflow. As an
> example, in the attached file, I reworked the second slide to try and
> match the workflow you indicate on your poster, just by changing the
> inner sector names and the outer sector names/colours and angular
> coverage. I didn't in this example change the data category arcs as I
> wasn't sure which were involved, but I hope you get the idea.
> As a further example, for slide 3 I reworked it again for the UL/TCD
> round trip.  Though it covers a lot of the same ground as the first one,
> I adapted the step sector labels and outer format sectors to better fit
> the narrative of the demo and remove item that are not feature of that
> demo (e.g. CMIS, PROV, RDF). Again David, this may not be completely
> accurate but it helps draw out both the differences and the common use
> of ITS of the different demos.
> As I mention, though this is useful for the posters, it will be
> important as a visual aid in introducing and navigating between each
> demo in the Lux review, since there's a lot for the reviewers to take in
> within a small period of time.
> The graphic is all powerpoint primatives, so it very easy to change by
> adjusting the text and sector angles - the only trick is to use
> gridlines so you can easily centre the sector and arc objects if you
> add or move them.
> I'm happy to help others in adapting the graphic to their demo poster
> and pitch if they are stuff.
> cheers,
> Dave
> p.s. I attached Olaf's version of the graphic with the larger lettering,
> but I haven't switched to it yet, since some of the new examples had a
> longer labels that didn't quite fit, just needs a bit of tweaking.
> On 21/02/2013 20:13, Yves Savourel wrote:
> > I'm not against using it. I think it would be fine to have a common way
to relate all use cases.
> >
> > I'm just afraid the current oval may confuse things rather than help.
> > I show my new draft to someone and the first question was: "Why there
is something about CMIS and NIF here, are you doing any of that in your
> >
> > The outer circle was also confusing to my test subject: "Why the
segmentation is on the XLIFF part? You are doing it before creating the
XLIFF document."
> >
> > Maybe the oval is too specific to Dave's use case?
> > If it was representing the sum of all the different things ITS can do
and each poster would have little markers on the slices relevant to their
process, (or thee slices relevant to them highlighted and the one not
relevant dimmed, maybe it would be more understandable?
> >
> > -ys
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Felix Sasaki []
> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:55 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Comments on posters and new template + ITS elipse (Re:
Updated validation poster (Was: Re: [Minutes] MLW-LT call 2013-02-20, plus
doodle for luxembourg prep call))
> >
> > Hi Yves, all,
> >
> > Am 21.02.13 20:44, schrieb Yves Savourel:
> >> Hi Felix, Dave, all,
> >>
> >>> One feedback from me: Marcis & all, can you also use the elipse with
> >>> ITS in the centre, created by Dave? See
> >> Just to be sure: what are we suppose to do with that oval?
> > Put it on the poster and, that's all, that is: b).
> >
> >> (I also missed a lot of the discussion at Wednesday call because of
> >> the really bad audio: sorry if I missed the info)
> > Yes, sorry for the bad connectivity, my fault. Next time I'll use a
different connection.
> >
> >> a) Change it completely to match our process and the data categories
we are using?
> >> Or b) keep it the same and somehow try to associate the different
slices to our process?
> >>
> >> b) would result in something that probably doesn't make much sense
> > Well, as Dave said: one role of the poster is to be input for reviewers
> > - even broad guidance helps them a lot, since we can't expect that they
follow our work closely. And it helps them to see that we *try* to create a
relation between our usage scenarios.
> >
> > So if you (and others) think we shouldn't use it, we can drop it. But
we then need to be prepared that a reviewer will search for broad (and of
course not totatlly clear, I agree) guidance - and will find nothing.
> > But whatever we decide: either everybody should use it or nobody.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Felix
> >
> >
> >
> <ITS overview-v2.pptx>

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 23:14:55 UTC