RE: Glossary help

"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624A57@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
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:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:31 AM
To: Husband, Yin-Leng; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Subject: Re: Glossary help


* Husband, Yin-Leng <[email protected]> [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 <[email protected]> [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:[email protected] - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.