RE: LODES of cleaning up

Last time  (SSN-XG days) we (Laurent Lefort actually)  built some XSLT to do it himself -- it has a lot of nice features that I haven't seen in other places although it is a little less pretty. I might be able to twist his arm...
--Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Le Phuoc, Danh [mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016 10:39 PM
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; phila@w3.org; janowicz@ucsb.edu; Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: LODES of cleaning up

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 12:48:25 UTC