Re: Using fresnel:FormatDescription again

From: Ryan Lee <>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:24:09 -0400

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
>>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
> 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       
W3C Research Engineer    +1.617.253.5327
Received on Mon Jun 27 2005 - 22:21:50 EDT

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