W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Editing documents

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:43:45 +0100
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0910190943t5cbd71e5x5b53922475f670f7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I talked to Sandro and his wiki magic is pretty time consuming and
complicated to set up, so it is only worth the effort if (more or
less) all documents are always edited in the wiki and from time to
time we decide to publish something. Then the wiki magic will do the
wiki to W3C HTML pages conversion.
Working only in the wiki for OWL was initially a bit painful because
it was very slow, but W3C has upgraded their servers and now it works
ok and the wiki has all the features hat they needed. Wiki is not very
good with parallel changes according to Ian, but for OWL it worked
pretty well overall I think. They have wiki templates for bib entries
for example, so that bibliographies are consistent throughout the
documents and templates are nice for other things too.
If we want to do only wiki editing, then we should probably count how
many documents that would be (and have an indication as to how often
we need to go from wiki to W3C HTML pages) and convince Sandro that it
is worth the effort.
I could live with both (wiki and non-wiki), but suggest we use a
single xsl/css file if we do non-wiki and not one per document to have
a more consistent look.
Birte

2009/10/19 Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>:
> Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>
>> What about considering the publishing process that OWL used (as well as
>> xmlspec) ?  Didn't they just use the wiki for editing?
>
> Every time the subject's been brought up with Sandro, we've sort of been
> warned off by it being pretty complicated, and probably not worth it unless
> all documents were going to go that route. That said, if someone else wanted
> to investigate further...
>
>> It would not work for me for the SPARQL Query doc because there is
>> existing content but for the property path content, the primary version is
>> in the wiki.  I think the OWL wiki has a number of extensions added that
>> aren't present in the SPARQL one; I came across __NUMBEREDHEADINGS__ but
>> didn't look for an exhaustive list.
>>
>> I guess it depends on the number of documents that might be authored on
>> the wiki and what it takes to set up.
>
> Yeah, exactly this.
>
> Lee
>
>>        Andy
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Birte Glimm
>>> Sent: 14 October 2009 16:00
>>> To: SPARQL Working Group
>>> Subject: Editing documents
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I manually converted my wiki page for entailment regimes into an xml
>>> page in the CVS repository, but I got the impression that we seem to
>>> be using different methodologies. Lee said that from the xml page a
>>> static HTML page will be generated, but most editors seem to be
>>> working directly on their html file and do not use the xml file, so
>>> what are we supposed to use? We should have a somehow uniform process
>>> for editing the documents.
>>> The xml uses an xsl file to render in the browser and the style
>>> information are mainly there, but we have several copies of the xsl
>>> file and it is quite specific to the xml spec from which I assume this
>>> file was originally copied. In the xml file you can only use commands
>>> that are defined in the xsl file, e.g., I can write
>>> <rfc2119>MAY</rfc2119> to get a bold MAY, but I cannot write
>>> <b>MAY</b>, which uses normal HTML commands as the wiki does. If we
>>> want to use the xml/xsl files, we should have one central file and
>>> adapt it to he SPARQL needs and all use that I would think. If we want
>>> to use HTML, we should still use a consistent style and then I would
>>> have to know which css file I should use.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Birte
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
>>> Computing Laboratory
>>> Parks Road
>>> Oxford
>>> OX1 3QD
>>> United Kingdom
>>> +44 (0)1865 283529
>>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 16:44:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT