Figure 1 changes

[cmungall]

Figure 1 is quite visually appealing, but I think could do with some improvement.

First of all, this should probably be figure 2. Figure 1 should orient the reader and give them some kind of overview. Perhaps the SubClass hierarchy of FALDO. This figure is already getting down in the weeds with some quite specific details.

In fact it may be better to precede this with a figure comparing a chunk of GFF with a FALDO instance graph, giving a "bigger picture" view.

Comments on the figure as it stands:

• The blank node notation ("_:foo") is quite geeky and probably needs explained.
• Should chr1 be a blank node?
• The diagram uses the same convention (circles) for resources and literals. Maybe it's just me but I found this confusing
• The usual W3 convention of circles=classes boxes=individuals is reversed
• 1(a) and 1(b) should be reversed. Introduce the problem ("how do we represent this thing you're familiar with") and then show the solution ("here is how it is represented in FALDO")
• The notation "a" should be defined (= rdf:type)
• What is the type of fr and rr?
• I would prefer a more concrete example. What kind of feature is this? What's its ID?
• It's not clear from the diagram but for this to be useful :fr and :rr should connect to some feature of interest

See also #14

[JervenBolleman]

Changed the figure a bit to take into account some of the comments. Its not perfect yet

[JervenBolleman]

If we make the feature explicit we spend more time modelling a gene etc.. than talking about the position i.e. it would distract from FALDO etc...