W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: LODES of cleaning up

From: Le Phuoc, Danh <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:38:56 +0000
To: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au" <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "phila@w3.org" <phila@w3.org>, "janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, "armin.haller@anu.edu.au" <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
CC: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D36B5AAD.21103%danh.lephuoc@nuigalway.ie>
I tried with Parrot as well, but Parrot didnąt generate some descriptions
that current version of SSN ontology has.


Anyway, I think itąs better to do it manually in the next version, it
might take more effort but more manageable.

Danh




On 25/05/2016 03:07, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

>> 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 12:39:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:21 UTC