Chris Bizer wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>Chris Bizer wrote:
>>
>>>Thinking further about it, we could also get rid of the format description
>>>at all and attach the content properties directly to the format. Two
>>>examples.
>>
>>As we are no longer using a box model, then it is likely someone might
>>want to describe how to separate properties, making this change
>>unworkable (i.e., it will not be clear which content is being separated,
>>values or properties).
>
> Right, I didn't think about this option.
>
> But as we are diferanciating between formatting and styling now and as the
> contentX properties clearly belong to the formatting part, I think they
> shouldn't be used on valueStyle or propertyStyle properties.
>
> So what do you think about using valueFormat and propertyFormat (or a
> similar term) in oder to make the difference clearer?
>
> Example:
>
> ex:bla rdf:type fresnel:format;
> fresnel:formatDomain foaf:mbox;
> fresnel:valueFormat [ fresnel:contentBetween ", " ] ;
> fresnel:valueStyle "boxCSS" .
That seems fine to me and also takes away one of the major blocks
between being OWL Full and OWL DL.
>>See my last message on what to do with resourceStyle, which will affect
>>this.
>>
>>http://simile.mit.edu/mail/ReadMsg?listName=Fresnel&msgNo=85
>
> The decision to wheater to move resourceStyle(Format) really depends on how
> minimal we want to keep the core vocab. I would like it minimal and thus
> leave resourceFormat in the extended vocab.
I don't feel this is minimally complete. To allow the styling of
everything except the resources seems arbitrarily limiting, regardless
of the number of terms it would introduce, and I suspect both Emmanuel
and I will want it available in our applications anyways. My code will
certainly be interpreting resourceFormat in some form or other, whether
it's in core or not.
--
Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
http://simile.mit.edu/
Received on Mon Jun 27 2005 - 22:21:50 EDT