RE: LODES of cleaning up

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

I've started using 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. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Kerry Taylor [] 
Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016 11:35 AM
To: Phil Archer <>;; Le Phuoc, Danh <>; Armin Haller <>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <>
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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [] 
Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016 12:06 AM
To: Kerry Taylor <>;; Le Phuoc, Danh <>; Armin Haller <>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <>
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"></p>
   <p class="comment">Schedule of...</p>
   <dl class="description">
    <dt>has super-classes</dt>
    <dd><a href="#OperatingProperty" 

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 and, if you so wish, accept my Pull Request




Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755

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