Indicate / explain dagram formalisms

[nicholascar]

Request from @paulwalk:

I find the diagrams quite difficult to understand. I think I'm unclear whether the diagrams represent entity relationships or object-oriented-hierarchies. These seem to be mixed together - for example the relationships between Standard and Profile. I guess it's not necessarily invalid for these to be mixed in this way, but I find it unusual and a little confusing.

[nicholascar]

Addressed in 3PWD by standardising all diagrams.

[nicholascar]

@paulwalk can you please see the diagrams in the latest ED and indicate whether you think they are improved? If so I'll mark this "due-for-closing" since standardization had occurred and now the next step - to indicate a diagram key only once - is being addressed in #689.

[paulwalk]

@nicholascar Thanks for following this up. I agree that the diagrams are improved, in the sense that I can follow them and believe that I understand what they are trying to convey in general.

Note: this is not an endorsement of the model - this comment refers to the notation used.

[nicholascar]

@paulwalk ok, I'll take what I can get and mark this due-for-closing on the basis of the editorial diagram issue bing improved, not anything to do with the model they represent!

[tombaker]

@nicholascar I do not see why this issue should be closed before a new diagram has been proposed, discussed, and accepted. Are you saying that diagram formalisms are purely editorial in nature and have nothing to do with the model they represent?

[nicholascar]

@tombaker new diagrams proposed, discussed and accepted by other editors via PR 1074 and present in the ED. Feedback on the diagrams from outside the WG received and actioned (see #687). There is now a new Diagram Conventions section in the ED which included a diagram element key.

This issue was notified to WG in previous plenary so I'm closing it now for any further work to be taken up in follow-on Issues.