[oslc-core] Comments on Vocabulary.xsl (publishing vocabularies to HTML)

[Steve K Speicher]

Looks nice.

One nit is that I don't think "See Also" should not be a <h4> takes up too 
much real estate and has extract horizontal line, etc.   Maybe just bold 
or nothing.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645


> From: Ian Green1 <ian.green at uk.ibm.com>
> To: oslc-core at open-services.net
> Date: 03/08/2011 05:44 AM
> Subject: [oslc-core] Comments on Vocabulary.xsl (publishing vocabularies 
to HTML)
> Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> 
> In [1] some practices for publishing OSLC vocabularies are described, 
and a 
> sample xsl is given [2] that generates wiki html from RDFS XML source. 
> 
> The XSL assumes that the seeAlso linkage into the formal specification 
is 
> singular, but in the RM specification this is not the case - for 
example, 
> relationship properties are meaningful on multiple domain resource types 
(RDFS
> classes) and so the RDFS contains more than one seeAlso for these 
properties. 
> Dealing with multiple seeAlsos means that the practice of a hyperlink 
from the
> rdfs:label to the seeAlso resource doesn't. 
> 
> The seeAlsos on the owl:Ontology element are ignored and yet including 
these 
> seems useful. 
> 
> The URI of the defined vocabulary elements is never explicitly included 
- only
> the rdfs:label and namespace URI are included.  If the guidance is 
followed, 
> and the RDFS is correct, concatenating these together with an 
intervening "#" 
> should yield the correct URI.  Putting the URI in the HTML seems safer. 
> 
> 
> I've modified the XSL as follows: 
>         headings are no longer hyperlinks - they are the rdfs:label only 

>         there is a See Also section for each vocabulary element and the 
> ontology itself which contains all of the see alsos. 
>         URIs are explicit (the rdf:about of the vocabulary element) 
>         some minor cosmetics - like separating out classes from 
properties in 
> the summary section 
> 
> By way of example, here is the CM vocabulary HTML with this new XSL [3] 
- c.f.
> the current one at [4]. 
> 
> I have two questions: would folk object to me using this XSL for the RM 
> vocabulary?  Would we prefer this XSL for all the vocabularies? 
> 
> regards 
>         -ian 
> 
> 
> [1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreURINamingGuidance 
> [2] 
http://open-services.net/pub/Main/OSLCCoreURINamingGuidance/Vocabulary.xsl 

> [3] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Sandbox/CmAltVocab 
> [4] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmVocabulary 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
3AU 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net