- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:53:55 -0600
- To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Husband, Yin-Leng" <Yin-leng.Husband@hp.com>
- cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
If the user can display the document with more than one organization, I don't think that it is necessary to worry too much about whether the domains are really accurate or exhaustive. -----Original Message----- From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:31 AM To: Husband, Yin-Leng; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) Subject: Re: Glossary help * Husband, Yin-Leng <Yin-leng.Husband@hp.com> [2003-02-18 11:50+1100] > >From the time I heard David Booth give the talk on RDF in Paris, I've > felt that the WSA Glossary would be a good test of RDF applicability. > David agreed with me then that ideally, the Glossary is presented in > RDF format so that all W3C specifications can refer to a single > definition of common terms. > > If RDF were used, one could then build in relationships between each > term and category. > > Knowing that using RDF is idealistic and probably not practical in > terms of the amount of work, I would suggest that the glossary terms > be organized alphabetically, but for each term, there would be (at > least) two fields: Domains and Definition. Definition field gives the > definition of the term, domains field gives the domains within which > the term is relevant. > > What do you think? You may be interested to know that there actually is such a project at W3C, that it will be presented at the Technical Plenary, and that I will actually be presenting our problems in light of this. So we may not be that far from doing so. * Husband, Yin-Leng <Yin-leng.Husband@hp.com> [2003-02-18 13:59+1100] > So I think there are (at least) two types of glossary users: 1. Those > who read sections of glossaries according to the category of interest, > 2. Those who read an item of the glossary for clarification of the item > in the midst of perusing some other W3C document. > > For type 2, I think just alphabetically ordering would suffice. For > type 1, some form of categorization is desirable. If the glossary were > formatted as an XML document, and the domains field used to hold the > different categories to which the item pertains, then a user could use > xpath or XSL Stylesheet to display terms relevant to specific > domain(s). > > This reasoning is starting to look like going down the RDF path ... > > What do you think? So it seems that we do want to have two organizations, or maybe simply just one and provide an index. This domains idea is exactly what I had in mind when I talked about categories. What is hard is coming up with a list of sensible domains, and try to have something more or less exhaustive. Technologically speaking, if we manage to know how to organize the document, I can write XSLT style sheets to tranform the document into appropriate shape and produce some handy XHTML. With this overall-W3C RDF glossary, I am also optimistic about tools which will help us do so. If you have any proposal, please send them to the Working Group's list. I don't want to lose some interesting thoughts about this. Apologies for not doing so from the beginning, but the email went from "can you help?" to vory interesting ideas very quickly. :-) Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 08:54:43 UTC