Hi Ryan,
> Chris Bizer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm working on the documentation now. For this I went through the
updated
> > Fresnel core ontology. Great work, but also three issues that might need
> > clarification:
>
> Thanks for catching these.
>
> > - The documentation about primaryClasses appears a bit strict to me:
> >
> > rdfs:comment "Specifies the classes that should be considered
primaries,
> > or first class results; secondary resources not matching the primaries
will
> > only be shown as sublenses. The range is a list of resource
> > selectors."_at_en^^dtype:string ;
> >
> > isn't it more like:
> >
> > rdfs:comment "Specifies the classes that should be considered primaries.
> > Primaries are an indicator for the browser which classes in an ontology
are
> > important and might therefore be used as starting points or be included
into
> > contents summaries or navigational structures. Example: The person class
> > might be considered primary, persons's addresses might be considered
> > secondary. The range is a list of resource selectors."_at_en^^dtype:string
;
>
> I don't see what you're trying to get at. Could you explain what you're
> trying to differentiate here?
>
What I don't like is the *only* in "[secondaries] will only be shown as
sublenses". I thought about primaries more as additional hints that a
browser might use to decide which classes make good starting points. Thats's
why I would prefer a softer formulation in the text.
Do I understand this right?
> > - fresnel:resourceStyle is a property of fresnel:Lens, all other styling
> > hooks are properties of Fresnel:Format. In order to have a clear
separation
> > between Lens and Format I think the resourceStyle property should be
moved
> > back to Format. In combination with FSL this would also allow stuff like
> > "Display all persons that are older than 30 years with a grey
background."
>
> I agree this is important; how do you envision styling a resource?
>
> We had class/instance styling in the extended vocabulary. Do we move
> them into core as formatting?
We definifivly should rename them to formatting, but I would leave them in
the extended vocab.
>
> > - the Fresnel:containerStyle has been removed. I guess we want to move
it to
> > the extended styling vocabulary or do we want to delete it? I would
prefer
> > the first option.
>
> I haven't been keeping up the extended vocabulary yet. I am fine with
> moving it instead of simply deleting it.
>
Great.
> > Editorial Change: the line "4. Group Vocabulary" should be removed from
the
> > Core Format section.
>
> Right.
>
> > I will submit an updated version of the manual later today ....
> >
Chris
> > Chris
>
> --
> Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
> W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
> http://simile.mit.edu/
Received on Mon Jun 27 2005 - 07:24:42 EDT