Re: further proceeding

From: Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 23:56:20 -0400

Ryan Lee wrote:
> Chris Bizer wrote:
>>> 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?
> I won't speak for someone else, but I think his message [1] should set
> your expectations for his participation until further notice.
> 1.
>> 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?
> I think that's basically the root of contention, yes.
>>>>> - 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.
> I doubt that will happen, but I'll run this by him to check.

Like I said before (and Ryan correctly referenced), I intend to step
aside and let him run the show on our end. I will not propose
alternative plans, nor continue the discussion.

This is my personal choice, it has not being imposed on me. I think
there is too much subjectivity involved in my participation and this is
hurting the ability to make progress.

Ryan and I will work together in implementing pluggable views for
longwell2 and we plan to use his code for this, therefore fresnel. I
expect a great deal of information on the status of things to come out
of that exercise.

Stefano Mazzocchi
Research Scientist                 Digital Libraries Research Group
Massachusetts Institute of Technology            location: E25-131C
77 Massachusetts Ave                   telephone: +1 (617) 253-1096
Cambridge, MA  02139-4307              email: stefanom at mit . edu
Received on Wed May 25 2005 - 03:54:41 EDT

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