Re: Proposal: series of "Advanced Use" articles

+1 to having a consistent diagram style!  It really helps newcomers to
quickly see how the system builds up when they can visually recognize the
areas they're already seen.

In the Open Annotation Community/Working Groups we also did this, and also
use omnigraffle.
Our diagramming conventions:
http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#diagrams-and-examples

Also happy to put out the omnigraffle sources as CC0 if that style is
selected.

Rob


On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 11:46 AM, mfhepp@gmail.com <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:

> As for graphics:
>
> I tried to develop a convention for graphics in the GoodRelations User's
> Guide, which suit very well for schema.org:
>
>
>     http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Conventions
>
> I am happy to release the OmniGraffle sources under a CC license.
>
> As for generating illustrations automatically: This would clearly be
> useful, but all my previous attempts in that direction failed - for good
> graphics, you need a lot of control over the final rendering, e.g. the size
> and position of elements. What might work is using a too that generates an
> SVG raw version, which you could then fine-tune manually.
>
> Martin
>
> -----------------------------------
> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Apr 2015, at 20:23, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10 April 2015 at 18:56, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:
> >> Am 10. April 2015 19:46:03 MESZ, schrieb Paul Watson <
> lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>:
> >>> On 10/04/15 18:12, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >>>> On 10 April 2015 at 17:45, Paul Watson
> >>> <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> I'm glad that proposal received such a positive response!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just thinking about the mechanics of it, since the content of the
> >>> main
> >>>>> schema.org domain needs to be deployed from github, it may be easier
> >>> to set
> >>>>> up a new subdomain (http://tutorials.schema.org?), add a CMS
> >>> (Drupal?), and
> >>>>> then control the publishing of tutorials through the CMS rather than
> >>> having
> >>>>> them dependent on release deployments to the main schema.org domain.
> >>> Any
> >>>>> existing tutorials linked from http://schema.org/docs/documents.html
> >>> could
> >>>>> be re-keyed into the CMS on the subdomain, and 301 redirects set up.
> >>>> Thanks for starting this discussion! I'd suggest that W3C's Community
> >>>> Group machinery, which is built on top of Wordpress, ought to be a
> >>>> reasonable place to start, with simple links from
> >>> /docs/documents.html
> >>>> being a reasonable start.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you log into https://www.w3.org/community/schemaorg/ with your w3c
> >>>> account info you should see (from the discreet menu bar at top of
> >>>> page) that it is all based on Wordpress, so there is a button there
> >>>> for 'new post', 'new page'. Let's collect questions/topics in Github
> >>>> as issues and to the extent that there is actually any consensus on
> >>>> the answers, that should provide raw materials for getting written
> >>> up.
> >>> Wordpress is fine by me if it's already set up and ready to use.
> >>>>
> >>>> So what topics do folk here think deserve coverage, beyond the basic
> >>>> 'getting started' guides that already exist?
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan
> >>>
> >>> Apart from Martin's proposed tutorial/article on the Goodrelations
> >>> model
> >>> in schema.org (which I look forward to) and some of Dan Scott's
> >>> articles
> >>> (which I read earlier and were very good), I agree with Aaron that the
> >>> use of itemref in the schema.org <http://schema.org> context would be
> a
> >>>
> >>> great subject for a tutorial.
> >>>
> >>> Plus anything to do with Linked Data in schema.org and the use of
> >>> multiple schema.org types on a single "item" (I think one of Dan
> >>> Scott's
> >>> articles did explain attack this one)
> >>>
> >>> And when the proposed schema.org extension mechanism is published then
> >>> that would certainly be a subject for a number of tutorials.
> >>>
> >>> Another source of possible articles would be to browse through the
> >>> StackOverflow questions about schema.org at
> >>>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/?tagnames=schema.org&sort=newest
> >>>
> >>> and look for any common questions.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, I think we should try to provide examples in all 3 formats
> >>> (Microdata, RDFa, and JSON-LD)
> >>
> >> Can we remove Microdata or move it to the end? I think Turtle would be
> more helpful...
> >
> > I think it would be a little misleading to focus on Turtle, since as
> > far as I am aware no significant consumption or publication of
> > schema.org currently uses that format. Several million sites meanwhile
> > are publishing schema.org as Microdata, with respectable amounts of
> > RDFa and fast growing amounts of JSON-LD. Having said that I would see
> > value in a document along lines of "schema.org for a Semantic Web /
> > Linked Data audience" which might naturally use Turtle and its
> > companion query language SPARQL.
> >
> > Given that there are multiple syntaxes appropriate to schema.org and
> > that people do tend to conflate schema.org with Microdata it would
> > (rather than using Turtle) be useful to make some use of graphical
> > representations, i.e. node-and-arc diagrams. Doing so might also help
> > emphasise the relationship to entity graph (freebase / google
> > knowledge graph, wikidata etc etc) approaches. We haven't done enough
> > of that yet at schema.org, beyond the diagrams in
> > http://blog.schema.org/2014/06/introducing-role.html
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305