#2: Graph metadata: Expand set of glpyhs, and fix naming

issuedata
Classification: Bug
Topic: UI
Importance: Medium
Status: Resolved
Assigned to:
Created by: miller
Created at: 2006-11-14
progress
Deadline: 2006-11-28 11:27
Hours estimated: 0
Hours needed: 0
Percent done: 0
contact
Name: Andrew Miller
Description: 
From Andre:
Just a minor comment on the glyph definition in the CellML Graph
Metadata specification.
The specification currently defines four glyphs: cg:dots, cg:squares,
cg:circles, and cg:diamonds. I'd like to suggest that the glyph itself
should not be plural. So the four should be: cg:dot, cg:square,
cg:circle, and cg:diamond.
This default set doesn't include one of the most commonly used (in my
experience at least) glyphs, a simple cross (x). So I would like to
suggest the addition of cg:cross to the list of glyphs defined by the
metadata specification.
And given I'm not a big fan of square or diamond glyphs, I'd also like
to add cg:plus (+) and cg:triangle, and maybe a cg:asterisk (*) to
ensure a suitable range of glyphs are available. I guess a line has to
be drawn somewhere as to what to include, but we want to ensure a
sufficiently rich set of glyphs...guess it depends on people's
interpretation of rich  :)
Transcript
#3: 2006-11-16 14:53 (miller)
status: "pending" -> "resolved" 
There doesn't seem to have been any objection to Andre's proposal, so I have
updated the specification to reflect these changes. I have also taken this
opportunity to clean up the example a bit, and to add a note advising against
using anonymous nodes in RDF/XML to represent graphs and traces.
I am marking this issue as resolved for now, please re-open if you have further
comments to make on this.

#2: 2006-11-14 11:54 (miller)
title: "Graph API: Expand set of glpyhs, and fix naming" -> "Graph metadata: Expand set of glpyhs, and fix naming"

#1: 2006-11-14 11:28 (miller)
topic: "" -> "UI"
title: "" -> "Graph API: Expand set of glpyhs, and fix naming"
description: "" -> "From Andre: Just a minor comment on the glyph definition in the CellML Graph Metadata specification. The specification currently defines four glyphs: cg:dots, cg:squares, cg:circles, and cg:diamonds. I'd like to suggest that the glyph itself should not be plural. So the four should be: cg:dot, cg:square, cg:circle, and cg:diamond. This default set doesn't include one of the most commonly used (in my experience at least) glyphs, a simple cross (x). So I would like to suggest the addition of cg:cross to the list of glyphs defined by the metadata specification. And given I'm not a big fan of square or diamond glyphs, I'd also like to add cg:plus (+) and cg:triangle, and maybe a cg:asterisk (*) to ensure a suitable range of glyphs are available. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what to include, but we want to ensure a sufficiently rich set of glyphs...guess it depends on people's interpretation of rich :) "

PloneCollectorNG (C) 2003-2004 by ZOPYX - Software Development and Consulting Andreas Jung

#2: Graph metadata: Expand set of glpyhs, and fix naming

issuedata
Classification: Bug
Topic: UI
Importance: Medium
Status: Resolved
Assigned to:
Created by: miller
Created at: 2006-11-14
progress
Deadline: 2006-11-28 11:27
Hours estimated: 0
Hours needed: 0
Percent done: 0
contact
Name: Andrew Miller
Description: 
From Andre:
Just a minor comment on the glyph definition in the CellML Graph
Metadata specification.
The specification currently defines four glyphs: cg:dots, cg:squares,
cg:circles, and cg:diamonds. I'd like to suggest that the glyph itself
should not be plural. So the four should be: cg:dot, cg:square,
cg:circle, and cg:diamond.
This default set doesn't include one of the most commonly used (in my
experience at least) glyphs, a simple cross (x). So I would like to
suggest the addition of cg:cross to the list of glyphs defined by the
metadata specification.
And given I'm not a big fan of square or diamond glyphs, I'd also like
to add cg:plus (+) and cg:triangle, and maybe a cg:asterisk (*) to
ensure a suitable range of glyphs are available. I guess a line has to
be drawn somewhere as to what to include, but we want to ensure a
sufficiently rich set of glyphs...guess it depends on people's
interpretation of rich  :)
Transcript
#3: 2006-11-16 14:53 (miller)
status: "pending" -> "resolved" 
There doesn't seem to have been any objection to Andre's proposal, so I have
updated the specification to reflect these changes. I have also taken this
opportunity to clean up the example a bit, and to add a note advising against
using anonymous nodes in RDF/XML to represent graphs and traces.
I am marking this issue as resolved for now, please re-open if you have further
comments to make on this.

#2: 2006-11-14 11:54 (miller)
title: "Graph API: Expand set of glpyhs, and fix naming" -> "Graph metadata: Expand set of glpyhs, and fix naming"

#1: 2006-11-14 11:28 (miller)
topic: "" -> "UI"
title: "" -> "Graph API: Expand set of glpyhs, and fix naming"
description: "" -> "From Andre: Just a minor comment on the glyph definition in the CellML Graph Metadata specification. The specification currently defines four glyphs: cg:dots, cg:squares, cg:circles, and cg:diamonds. I'd like to suggest that the glyph itself should not be plural. So the four should be: cg:dot, cg:square, cg:circle, and cg:diamond. This default set doesn't include one of the most commonly used (in my experience at least) glyphs, a simple cross (x). So I would like to suggest the addition of cg:cross to the list of glyphs defined by the metadata specification. And given I'm not a big fan of square or diamond glyphs, I'd also like to add cg:plus (+) and cg:triangle, and maybe a cg:asterisk (*) to ensure a suitable range of glyphs are available. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what to include, but we want to ensure a sufficiently rich set of glyphs...guess it depends on people's interpretation of rich :) "

PloneCollectorNG (C) 2003-2004 by ZOPYX - Software Development and Consulting Andreas Jung