David R. Karger wrote:
> I woke ope this weekend feeling like we've gotten very wrapped up in the "design"
> of fresnel while I still feel unsure about the "requirements" of fresnel. So I
> want to back up to that question, and think about what we actually want fresnel to
> let us do, and even perhaps come up with some use cases.
>
> I know stefano is sceptical of any "device independence" for fresnel. I'm still
> thinking about whether it is possible. If we do want some amount of device
> independence, it seems to me that we must offer one of two things:
>
> 1. Our "purpose" vocabulary must accomodate some notion of the capabilities of
> the device; eg, one must be able to ask for a lens able to display things
> in very small amount of space, or using only text, etc.
>
> 2. The lens that everyone uses must incoroporate some notion of relative
> importance of things, eg that the name matters a lot more than the address,
> so that a device/application can make informed choices based on its limitations;
> eg a cell phone might only show the most important property.
>
> choice 1 has the advantage of being "not fuzzy". Everything is precisely defined.
> On the other hand it calls for a lot of work on the part of the lens designer, and
> probably requires a new lens for every device/application with different features.
> In the end it gives less information, and thus less control, to the device.
> Choice 2 forces us to think about fuzzy notions of greater or less importance.
> But it should let us produce one lens that can be used effectively by a broader
> variety of applications.
>
> Right now I am leaning towards (2). What do others think?
First, would CC/PP be able to model some of this knowledge?
--
Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex FRANCE http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Mon May 09 2005 - 18:57:25 EDT