ISSUE-7: Documentation format - Generation of documentation derived from the OWL file
Doc format/generation
Documentation format - Generation of documentation derived from the OWL file
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Raised by:
- Laurent Lefort
- Opened on:
- 2010-06-07
- Description:
- There is a range of options to document an ontology like:
http://ivan-herman.name/2010/05/28/self-documenting-vocabularies-using-rdfa/
http://trdf.sourceforge.net/provenance/ns.html
http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/
http://idi.fundacionctic.org/muo/muo-vocab.html
Some projects have developed specific tools to automatically generate an HTML file out of the OWL using a purpose-made template e,g, SpecGen http://forge.morfeo-project.org/wiki_en/index.php/SpecGen
(note: there may be more recent versions of it maintained elsewhere or embedded in another tool).
Issue/Questions:
Which documentation format should the XG use?
Should the SSN XG use such a specgen-like tool and if so which one? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- SSN-XG Meeting Minutes 14 July 2010 (from Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au on 2010-07-15)
- SSN-XG Meeting Reminder 16-June-2010 (from Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au on 2010-06-16)
- SSN-XG Meeting Minutes 8 June 2010 (from Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au on 2010-06-16)
- Re: ISSUE-7 (Doc format/generation): Documentation format - Generation of documentation derived from the OWL file (from rgarcia@fi.upm.es on 2010-06-08)
- SSN-XG Meeting Reminder 8-June-2010 (from Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au on 2010-06-08)
- ISSUE-7 (Doc format/generation): Documentation format - Generation of documentation derived from the OWL file (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2010-06-07)
Related notes:
Let me precise my query. I am more specifically interested by tools which applies a user-defined template to generate the documentation.
And during last meeting, we also agree that it would be a good idea to structure the generated documentation according to the sub-deliverable we want to define (a possible trick is to use the extra rdf:seeAlso annotations as the basis to trigger the separation of the documentation into thematic sub-parts.
Found some answers here:
http://www.semanticoverflow.com/questions/1087/generating-documentation-from-rdfs-and-or-owl-vocabularies
I have installed the Win binaries for the redland-python bindings (http://blog.code-cop.org/2008/04/redland-rdf-library-and-ruby.html) to test the specgen documentation generation tool. It works when the ontologies are correctly deployed (it also work for single files where ontology URI is defined by an unsuffixed xmlns declaration)
My conclusion: tools like XSLT-based approaches create richer documentation.
- http://rhizomik.net/html/redefer/#RDF2HTML
- http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/projects/owl2xhtml/
- http://vocab.org/2004/03/toolchain/ (more complex)
The resolution of this issue is that we will use an XSLT tool.
Thanks to Ian Davis http://iandavis.com/, the author of the tool chain XSLT script: http://vocab.org/2004/03/toolchain/ from which our documentation tool has been adapted.
For more information, see the details of the documentation generation solution on the wiki: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Ontology_documentation_and_metadata
Display change log
