Re: Pending vocabulary issues + further proceeding

From: Emmanuel Pietriga <>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 08:51:53 +0200

Chris Bizer wrote:

>>>>>>Ryan: Could you provide an more complete example than in the cited
>>>>>>post on
>>>>>>how PropertyTransform would be used?
>>>>:myImages a fresnel:PropertyTransform ;
>>>> fresnel:transformDomain foaf:depiction ;
>>>> fresnel:transformDomain my:image ;
>>>> fresnel:value fresnel:image ;
>>>> fresnel:valueSeparator [
>>>> fresnel:contentFirst "[ " ;
>>>> fresnel:contentAfter " | " ;
>>>> fresnel:contentLast " ]" ]
>>>> fresnel:label "can be seen in"^^xsd:string .
>>>>It looks a lot like moving the :*Style terms out of core and,
>>>>eventually, giving it a more appropriate name.
>>>The terminology is fine with me. But why are we moving this out of core?
>>>If we do so, only lenses will remain in core. I thought we were moving
>>>the styling part out of core.
>>What I meant was that the above looks a lot like a repeat of what we
>>originally called styling, just without the box model fresnel:container
>>/ resource / etc. Style terms. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
> So, why don't we stick to the name fresnel:style and just move the box model
> to the extended vocabulary?
> For me the above concept feels much more like styling a property than
> transforming a property. Transform it from which state to which state? Also
> sounds like transformation chains which it obviously isn't.

I consider the two parts of styling to be quite different, and I would
have liked to get two different names. But I do not have a proposal for
them yet. So we might keep with style for now. It seems to be the most
appropriate term in the end...

> I see Ryan's proposal as a valid alternative way of doing styling in
> Fresnel. Both ways have their advantages and disadvantages. I guess Ryan's
> proposal is easier to implement but it is less RDFish and less expressive
> than the old box model proposal which works together with FSL which Ryan's
> proposal doesn't.
> I think the arguments pro and contra both proposals are all found in the
> past discussions, so which proposal fits better depends on the requirements
> we try to fulfil. And the requirements are still where we disagree.
> A possible solution could be to have both, a "Simple Styling Vocabulary"
> (Ryan's proposal) and an "Advanced Styling Vocabular" (old approach). But
> I'm not to sure if this is a good idea.

There are significant differences between the two, and I don't think we
can get something clean and non-confusing by merging the two. I suggest
going with Ryan's proposal. When we're done, we might investigate ways
of expressing RDFish styling rules based on this (by investigate I mean
see if we could propose something appropriate, not necessarily do it).

> I generally think that we shouldn't continue discussing on the technical
> details level but better discuss the further proceeding and a modus on how
> we get to an agreed upon specification in a fixed timeframe.


> I have the feeling that:
> - the discussions start circling
> - the consensus about requirements is drifting apart
> - the whole development process is slowing down
> - our continuous controversial discussions are harming the attention we had
> already created with our first draft specification.

> Ryan, Stefano and Emmanuel what is your current perception of the
> development process?

The same as yours.

> Do you want to keep on discussing details or should we
> first try to agree on a modus and a timeframe?

2nd option. I have started working with somebody in the
biology/comp.sci. on an extension of FSL for their own RDF modelling
purpose, and it would really be great to have a "published" version (at
a astable URL) of our work. Other people I'm starting working with here
at INRIA might also be interested in the whole Fresnel solution very
soon. So I'd like us to keep going and produce something good before summer.

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
Received on Wed May 18 2005 - 06:52:11 EDT

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