- From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:08:16 +0200
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: Stephen D.Williams <sdw@lig.net>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 28 Jun 2013, at 14:42, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: >> ER, UML, ORM statements are inherently graphical in nature and the graphics actually tells you in an intuitive way their meaning. > > I've seen a couple which seemed to help people grok schemas. There's an early OWL (or maybe DAML+OIL) doc that I stumble across from time to time which represented partitions as radially divide elipses (sort of like pie charts). Sure. This is in the spirit to represent graphically the aspects for which the visual representation actually helps. By the way, the graphical representation of a partition in ORM reminds also the "sliced filled pie" <http://www.orm.net/images/subtype_pic.png>. > I tried to put triples and set constraints in <http://www.w3.org/TR/hcls-kb/#triplemodel>. These may not be super-intuitive for the person who has never considered intersections and unions, but them hollowed or solid diamonds and circles aren't apparent until one has learned the UML visual language. It is not obvious to me that a representation of classes and instances with explicit Venn diagrams actually helps, since it may become quite tangled with large non-tree taxonomies, but it is worth exploring I guess. cheers --e.
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 13:08:51 UTC