Re: AW: AW: Pending vocabulary issues

From: Chris Bizer <>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 21:46:58 +0100

Hi Ryan,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Lee" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Pending vocabulary issues

> >>I came up with a couple new issues while looking over my style parsing
> >>code.
> >>
> >>5. styleDomain and... styleResourceDomain? We make a distinction for
> >>different kinds of lenses (class vs. instance domain) but we don't for
> >>styling resources vs. styling properties. I wonder if we'd also have to
> >>distinguish styling classes vs. styling instances,
> >
> >
> > We argued about the necessity of having both lensDomain and
> > instanceLensDomain. I was against it because with FSL you could
> > unambiguously express both, but we eventually agreed to keep it as FSL
> > is not a must-be-supported selection language (only simple naming is).
> >
> > If we have such a thing for lenses, I guess we should have it for
> > styles. And you're right, there is even more ambiguity here. Does the
> > style apply to the resource with URI A, to all resources that are
> > instances of class refered to by URI A, or to properties identified by
> > URI A? We probably want to express all of these, so we need vocabulary
> > constructs for them.
> >
> > We could have:
> > - classStyleDomain
> > - instanceStyleDomain
> > - propertyStyleDomain
> >
> >
> > Chris: We already have this. See:
> >
> > .htm#classstyle
> Ah, sorry I forgot we'd already gone down this path. Doesn't this
> effectively render fresnel:resourceStyle useless in core? Or see below
> in regards to nixing the box model.

Kind of. But you could also think about using the attribut on a style group
like containerStyle for setting for example the background color for all
resources independent of their type.

I think the spec is currently still a bit unprecise on where you can use
fresnel:resourceStyle. I could clear this up, but would prefer to wait until
we got general agreement on the CSS hooks (if we ever get there with Stefano
oposing any styling).

> > and I think it would be better to have:
> > - classLensDomain (as opposed to lensDomain)
> > - instanceLensDomain
> >
> > Chris: We already discussed this and descided that leaving the "class"
> > is a usefull abbreviation, because it is the usual case.
> >
> >
> >
> >>6. Non-existent styleDomain for some styles. This does make sense if a
> >>style is only used in a fresnel:use relationship, but *Domain has been
> >>the definining one-step inference in implementation so far. Could we
> >>possibly say something like fresnel:styleDomain fresnel:null, where the
> >>idea is that the domain of the style is considered irrelevant? The
> >>style wouldn't be applied except where specified in fresnel:use.
> >
> > Can't we just intepret the lack of fresnel:*Domain as the domain of a
> > style being irrelevant?
> fresnel:*Domain is a direct indication of the type of a resource.
> Without it, I can't tell what the resource is.
> I suppose an additional means of inference is to say the object of
> fresnel:use is a style, but the examples and the documentation don't
> bear that out precisely - the manual appears to state the object of
> fresnel:use is a fresnel:Group, but a later statement says the object
> can be a fresnel:Style, using an example out of the examples directory
> (search in-document for fresnel:use).
> Is it supposed to be both? If it is, or if it's supposed to be just
> groups, I can't use it for inferencing style type.

It is supposed to be both, because together with mergeProperty you like to
specify a single style for labeling the merge; together with a sublens you
might want to specify a group of styles used for displaying the content of
the sublens.

> >>7. {container,property,etc.}Style are used to refer to a
> >><something.css#a> resource in Chris' examples, I'm not sure what that's
> >>supposed to mean. Sorry for not remembering; I don't recall how that
> >>was supposed to accomplish something in practice?
> >
> > These terms are closely related to the box model. This isn't to be part
> > of core.
> Do we all agree that they're being removed from core?

Depends on wheater you mean with "removing" moving them to the extended
style vocab or dropping them.
It also depends on what you are planning to do with the CSS hooks on the
lenses. I see a great overlapping between the box model and your hooks. So I
think we should first have a look at your idea and decide afterwards on the
best solution for CSS hooking.


> > Chris: Yes, the terms do the same on styles that you want to do with
> > CSS hooks on lenses.
> >
> > <something.css#a> was a hack to refer to a style class in an external
> > stylesheet. The example is outdated. We changed the design to:
> >
> > :foafGroup rdf:type fresnel:Group ;
> > fresnel:stylesheetLink <> .
> >
> > :uriStyle rdf:type fresnel:Style ;
> > fresnel:styleDomain foaf:homepage ;
> > fresnel:labelStyle "basicLabel"^^fresnel:styleClass ;
> > fresnel:valueStyle "basicUri"^^fresnel:styleClass ;
> > fresnel:group :foafGroup .
> >
> > See:
> >
> > .htm#csshooking
> Got it, thanks for clearing that up.
> Can we clean up the examples or make it a near-term goal to get them
> completely in synch with the documentation?
> --
> Ryan Lee
> W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
Received on Fri May 13 2005 - 19:45:45 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:40:51 EDT