Here is a screenshot of the schema.org website saying that Corporation is like a child of Organization:
I see the keywords property on Organization.
Can I use the keywords property on Corporation as well?
The reason why I am asking is a validator iI am using is giving me an error on this:
But when I use https://validator.schema.org/, it’s not giving me an error.
Yes:
The keywords property is defined for Organization.
Every Corporation is also an Organization.
Which is also why the keywords property is listed in the table on https://schema.org/Corporation. You can always stick to that table to see which properties are defined/expected.
(By the way, there aren’t any restrictions for which types Schema.org properties can be used. It’s not an error to use a property for an item of a type for which it’s not defined. It might not be expected/supported by consumers, including validators, and it might not make sense, but it’s not that your structured data would become invalid or something like that.)
Related
The diagram below is based on these facts:
A citizen may make a claim / reclamation on pollutions
An administrator will send the reclamation by type to the appropriate agency / organization, and it will respond with a diagnostic report
This report will be sent by the administrator, to another organization, for the estimation of the solution (costs, etc.).
My problem is to how can I show that Admin will send the claim to an agency? Do I have to make an association between Organization and Reclamation?
If your requirements include that the communication between the Admin and the Organization is to be documented, then you need to take care of this in your class diagram. And, in fact, you already have an item for this: the NotifyOrganization association class. Notice, however, that it's not a good idea to use the questionable UML concept of an association class, which does not have a clear semantics and is confusing. This seems to be confirmed by your flawed modeling of the multiplicities of the NotifyOrganization association, which must not be one-to-one (or 1 to 0..1), but rather many-to-many (* to *).
So, better replace the NotifyOrganization association class with an ordinary class (possibly with an improved name such as Notification) and attach it to Admin and Organization with two many-to-one associations such that each notification is linked to exactly one admin and one Organization.
Notice that a notification represents a (communication/message) event, so Notification represents an event type. It*s quite common in business information models to have both object types and event types, both as classes in a UML class diagram.
...how can I show that Admin will send the claim to an agency?
UML Class Diagram is not show-everything document. In order to document that admin will send claim to agency you can document it effectively using UML Sequence Diagram or some other behavior diagram
...do I have to make an association between Organization and Reclamation?
No, if the agency does not need to care about who exactly delivered the claim or what's the person's role (e.g. "admin"), then you don' have to add it to the class model (and show some association) at all
...diagram...based on these facts...
In order to describe the overall process in a one-page style picture, you (and your business partners) can find very useful the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) graphical language in addition to UML
I have to model a product, which has properties that aren't listed in the Schema.org Product type. After seeking in many places, I didn't find anything that fits to my need.
How can I extend the Schema.org Product type?
You could always use other vocabularies (that offer the properties you need) in addition to Schema.org. But if you want to use only the vocabulary Schema.org, you have two options in general:
Propose new properties (or classes).
You can do this on Schema.org W3C Community Group’s mailing list, or on Schema.org’s GitHub issue tracker.
See: How can I get involved? How can I propose new schemas or other improvements?
If accepted, it might become part of the core (if it’s something "the most common web applications need"), or it might become an extension.
(deprecated!) Extend existing properties.
Extending existing properties is documented at http://schema.org/docs/old_extension.html, but note that this mechanism is considered outdated.
For specific types (including Product), you can use Schema.org’s additionalProperty property:
A property-value pair representing an additional characteristics of the entitity, e.g. a product feature or another characteristic for which there is no matching property in schema.org.
I need to query the EA database in order to discover the visibility status of a class attribute.
I've been snooping around but could not find the table where this information is stored.
Any help will be appreciated.
This is a case of inconsistent naming in EA. The property that's displayed as the attribute's Scope in the GUI is referred to as Attribute.Visibility in the API, and stored in t_attribute.Scope in the database.
Similarly, the same property of an element is displayed as Scope in the GUI, referred to as Element.Visibility in the API and stored in t_object.Scope in the database. There is a column t_object.Visibility, but it appears to be unused.
I am trying to use NDepend in code review process. The one thing I want to solve is to check if newly created classes are valid from the point of CQL rules.
I have plenty of legacy code and there numerous fields/classes/methods that violates CQL rules. But I want to find only these rules which are violated by a particular class which was newly created by a developer and which I want to review.
Is there a way to find all CQL rules violated by a particular class, so I could fix them?
Yes, you can compare two analysis and select new classes with the CQL condition "WasAdded".
Select Classes Where WasAdded
Other attributes to compare two versions are
WasRemoved
CodeWasChanged
Check out CQL Documentation and this article from Patrick.
I would like to experimentally apply an aspect of encapsulation that I read about once, where an entity object includes domains for its attributes, e.g. for its CostCentre property, it contains the list of valid cost centres. This way, when I open an edit form for an Extension, I only need pass the form one Extension object, where I normally access a CostCentre object when initialising the form.
This also applies where I have a list of Extensions bound to a grid (telerik RadGrid), and I handle an edit command on the grid. I want to create an edit form and pass it an Extension object, where now I pass the edit form an ExtensionID and create my object in the form.
What I'm actually asking here is for pointers to guidance on doing this this way, or the 'proper' way of achieving something similar to what I have described here.
It would depend on your data source. If you are retrieving the list of Cost Centers from a database, that would be one approach. If it's a short list of predetermined values (like Yes/No/Maybe So) then property attributes might do the trick. If it needs to be more configurable per-environment, then IoC or the Provider pattern would be the best choice.
I think your problem is similar to a custom ad-hoc search page we did on a previous project. We decorated our entity classes and properties with attributes that contained some predetermined 'pointers' to the lookup value methods, and their relationships. Then we created a single custom UI control (like your edit page described in your post) which used these attributes to generate the drop down and auto-completion text box lists by dynamically generating a LINQ expression, then executing it at run-time based on whatever the user was doing.
This was accomplished with basically three moving parts: A) the attributes on the data access objects B) the 'attribute facade' methods at the middle-tier compiling and generation dynamic LINQ expressions and C) the custom UI control that called our middle-tier service methods.
Sometimes plans like these backfire, but in our case it worked great. Decorating our objects with attributes, then creating a single path of logic gave us just enough power to do what we needed to do while minimizing the amount of code required, and completely eliminated any boilerplate. However, this approach was not very configurable. By compiling these attributes into the code, we tightly coupled our application to the datasource. On this particular project it wasn't a big deal because it was a clients internal system and it fit the project timeline. However, on a "real product" implementing the logic with the Provider pattern or using something like the Castle Projects IoC would have allowed us the same power with a great deal more configurability. The downside of this is there is more to manage, and more that can go wrong with deployments, etc.