RE: LODES of cleaning up

> Suggestions for "much better tools" warmly welcomed from the Group.

I've started using Parrot. http://ontorule-project.eu/parrot/parrot 
Not sure if it is 'better', but I think the HTML is slightly less crufty. 
Mind you, I did the Time doco manually, as it helped me cross-check the embedded annotations. 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016 11:35 AM
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>; janowicz@ucsb.edu; Le Phuoc, Danh <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>; Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: RE: LODES of cleaning up

Pulled and merged, thankyou Phil.
Some of the good stuff of LODE styling  has disappeared, but as we need a much better tool for next time, this is not a concern to me.

Suggestions for "much better tools" warmly welcomed from the Group.

 " Two things I haven't done are"  - I take that to mean they *will* be done by some poor W3C staffer after the FPWD is approved by SDW?

Being only  a "poor colonial" of British convict extract, and notwithstanding 3 years of on-the-job schooling at that most esteemed  British institution of pedantry, the Oxford University Press,  I  am not trained to even  parse expressions like "etymologically accurate orthography" . On the other hand, I think you would find my writing might  commit that W3C sin, as I do not write "American English" unless I am  tortured to do so. So you might indeed have some work to do.

-Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016 12:06 AM
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; janowicz@ucsb.edu; Le Phuoc, Danh <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>; Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: LODES of cleaning up

SSN Editors,

I've been through the markup generated by LODE. Nothing wrong with it as such but there's an awful lot of code that doesn't do a great deal once you get to a doc like this. So a typical definition section now looks like this:

<section id="h-MaintenanceSchedule" class="entity">
   <h4 id="MaintenanceSchedule">Maintenance Schedule</h4>
   <p class="iri"> http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/MaintenanceSchedule</p>
   <p class="comment">Schedule of...</p>
   <dl class="description">
    <dt>has super-classes</dt>
    <dd><a href="#OperatingProperty" 
title="http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/OperatingProperty">OperatingProperty</a></dd>
   </dl>
</section>

I've got rid of all the generated IDs (d3015 or whatever) and replaced them with the actual terms as IDs on the <h4 /> elements - which means that the frag IDs within the doc are now the actual terms. A bit of CSS takes care of the IRIs, decoration of the super/sub classes etc.

One thing I got rid of that you might like is LODE's addition of superscripts for 'c' and 'op' for Class, Object property etc. Hope that's not a problem.

I've run the doc through the validators etc. so it should be all OK now. 
Two things I haven't done are:

1. Check that the doc uses simplified English throughout (some people call it American English). The poor colonials really can't cope with etymologically accurate orthography, bless 'em.

2. Check for a bit of W3C-weirdness. For our own historical reasons, we always capitalise Web (I know, I know but it's house rules and all that).

Obviously I have not applied any relevant OGC rules.

You can see the result of my labour at
http://philarcher1.github.io/sdw/ssn/ and, if you so wish, accept my Pull Request https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/262


HTH

Phil.


-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/


http://philarcher.org

+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2016 02:08:09 UTC