Re: further proceeding

From: Chris Bizer <chris_at_bizer.de>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 09:53:01 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Emmanuel Pietriga" <Emmanuel.Pietriga_at_lri.fr>
To: <fresnel-dev_at_simile.mit.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: further proceeding


> Chris Bizer wrote:
>
> >>What are we aiming to accomplish by then?
> >>
> >>- concensus on Fresnel goals
> >
> >
> > Maybe it would be good to write down the requirements again and have
people
> > agree to them first. Afterwards they should be frozen. What do you
think?
>
> Yes. We should probably centralize this through a document stored in
> SVN. It is hard to do that only through the mailing list.
>

I was thinking about this again.

My impression is that Ryan, Emmanuel and I are agreeing on the requirements.
I don't know about Stefano, but it also seams that he is currently busy with
finishing Longwell and we shouldn't exprect too much input from him in the
next couple of weeks. Stefano right?

The only point where we disagree is the way to fulfill the requirement "It
sould be possible to use CSS styling instructions together with Fresnel". So
I'm wondering if we really should spend time on writing down all
requirements again or just skip this phase, which would save us 2 week in
the overall process and give Emmanuel more time to contribute to the paper.

What do you think?

>
>
> >>- finalize terms
> >
> >
> > Which means that we have to take two decisions (maybe by voting):
> > - Do we keep the name 'style' or do we use another name?
>
> I haven't found anything better.
>
>
> > - Do we stick with the box model as described in the current spec or do
we
> > use Ryan's proposal for attaching CSS for now?
>
> That depends on what requirements we agree on.
>

As I said in my other mail. I think Ryan's proposal is still incomplete on
how to assign CSS classes to resources, properties, labels and values inside
Fresnel. So maybe some time should be spend on finalizing the details of
this proposal, so that we can decide between it and the box model.

I think it would also be good if Ryan and Stefano would closer align their
ideas now and come up with a joined proposal, so that we avoid having a
third proposal from Stefano in a couple of weeks when we are already in the
later stages of our timeline.

Chris

>
> >>- publish core ontology that's as complete in its description as
possible
> >
> >
> > Which means updating the current Fresnel
> > - specification
> > - OWL ontologies
> > - Examples
> > - Website
> >
> >
> >>- publish Fresnel website to w3.org
> >
> > - write a paper for the workshop based on our current draft paper.
>
> We can. But then this is not a position paper. This is a research paper.
>
>
>
> > I still think the idea of having a *standard* way of expressing lenses
(+
> > maybe styles) is to be able to share display knowledge between different
> > browsers.
>
> Yes, otherwise it is pointless. I think everybody agrees with the
> general idea. Where people disagree is where we should stop sharing
> dknowledge across browsers: i.e., should it include CSS/styling
> instructions or not.
>
>
> > I think it would really be good to have a fixed timeline.
> >
> > What about:
> > - 30th May: Requirements agreed upon (and not changeable anymore).
> > - 15th June: Decisions about the pending vocabulary issues taken.
> > - 30th June: Documentation and examples updated, W3C Website published.
> > - 15th July: Some online demo available based on Ryan's implementation.
> > - 30th July: Paper submitted.
>
> That sounds good. Note that I won't be able to work on this from July
> 23rd to the deadline. But we can work on the paper in parallel with the
> implementation phase.
>
>
> --
> 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 Sat May 21 2005 - 07:51:28 EDT

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