Re: Splitting Part 1 and Part 2 in TOC

Holger, this is indeed how I was picturing it.

BTW, couldn't 4 be 3.3? It seems analogous to 3.2.

kc

On 4/1/15 5:50 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Arthur suggested to me that it would be good to have a more visible
> separation between
>
>      Introduction
>      Section 2 - 6 (Core)
>      Section 7 onwards (Advanced)
>
> I wish I could separate the Table of Contents so that it looked like
>
>   * 1.Introduction <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction>
>       o 1.1Document Outline
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction-outline>
>       o 1.2Overview and Terminology of Core Features
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction-overview>
>       o 1.3Overview and Terminology of Advanced Features
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction-overview-advanced>
>       o 1.4Namespaces <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#namespaces>
>
>     *PART 1: **SHACL Core Profile**
>     *
>
>   * 2.Shapes <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes>
>       o 2.1Shape Labels and Comments
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shape-labels>
>       o 2.2Shape Specialization Mechanism
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shape-specialization>
>       o 2.3Shape Constraints
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shape-constraints>
>   * 3.Property Constraints
>     <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#property-constraints>
>       o 3.1Property Constraints (sh:property)
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#property-constraints-property>
>
>           + 3.1.1sh:allowedValues
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractAllowedValuesPropertyConstraint>
>           + 3.1.2sh:datatype
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractDatatypePropertyConstraint>
>           + 3.1.3sh:hasValue
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractHasValuePropertyConstraint>
>           + 3.1.4sh:minCount, sh:maxCount
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractCountPropertyConstraint>
>           + 3.1.5sh:nodeKind
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractNodeKindPropertyConstraint>
>           + 3.1.6sh:valueShape
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractValueShapePropertyConstraint>
>           + 3.1.7sh:valueType
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractValueTypePropertyConstraint>
>       o 3.2Inverse Property Constraints (sh:inverseProperty)
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#property-constraints-inverseProperty>
>   * 4.Disjunctive Constraints (sh:OrConstraint)
>     <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#or>
>   * 5.Scope of Constraints (sh:scope)
>     <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scope>
>   * 6.Constraint Violations Vocabulary
>     <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations>
>       o 6.1Types of Constraint Violations
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-types>
>       o 6.2Structural Violation Metadata
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure>
>           + 6.2.1sh:root
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-root>
>           + 6.2.2sh:path
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-path>
>           + 6.2.3sh:value
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-value>
>           + 6.2.4sh:source
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-source>
>           + 6.2.5sh:detail
>             <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-detail>
>       o 6.3Human-readable Violation Messages (sh:message)
>         <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-message>
>   *
>
>     *PART 2: Advanced Topics**
>     *
>
>     **7.General Shape Constraints (sh:constraint)
>     <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#general-constraints>
>   * ...
>
> I do not believe ReSpec allows me to do that (does anyone know?), but
> I'd be happy to manually inject such intermediate headers into the final
> HTML before publication. It would also make it easier for us to state
> that we expect feedback on Part 1 as part of the FPWD while we could
> leave Part 2 as "informative" and unstable if we cannot agree on this in
> time of publication.
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 13:26:27 UTC