Emmanuel Pietriga wrote:
> Ryan Lee wrote:
>
>> Almost... I realized a few small things while working through the
>> format implementation.
>>
>> The first is minor. There should be a labelFormat property for, e.g.,
>> if you want to display "name: John" with the colon. It's just that
>> contentAfter/contentLast and contentBefore/contentFirst will end up
>> being the same thing, but that already follows from what we've written
>> up on content* conflicts. If fresnel:label is fresnel:none, I think I
>> would ignore any labelFormat information. Thoughts?
>
> Yes, these should be ignored. I would add, a Fresnel interpretor should
> issue a warning in debug mode when encountering label formatting
> instructions in conjunction with a fresnel:label=fresnel:none.
Ok.
>> The second is a bit more interesting. label and valueFormat can both
>> be interpreted only one way because labelFormat is just a specific
>> individual, and valueFormat is just for a set of values that can't be
>> distinguished from one another. Unfortunately, propertyFormat is
>> usefully interpreted as either - one specific property (used in
>> multiple resources), or a set of properties belonging to one
>> resource. The same could go for resources if resourceFormat were
>> allowed for use on a Group.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly by "one specific
> property (used in multiple resources)". That's a little bit ambiguous,
> as I don't understand whether you're talking about a property type or a
> what I calla property instance for lack of a better term, i.e., an
> actual arc in the RDF graph. Can we talk about this in terms of nodes
> and arcs instead? (I just want to make sure I get what you're saying
> correctly).
If propertyFormat were used in conjunction with a resource type
formatDomain, it would mean 'all properties of matching resources' (or
all arcs sourcing from matching nodes). If it were used in conjunction
with a propertyFormatDomain, it would mean 'all matching properties' (or
all arcs in the graph that look like the domain, e.g., foaf:knows).
There seems to me to be an imbalance in that labelFormat sounds like the
latter, but valueFormat sounds like the former. We've already said
which one propertyFormat is (the latter), but I think it could be very
useful if something were done to allow for 'all properties of matching
resources' (the latter).
To put it another way, do I want to talk about the exact match or the
children of the match? All child resources of the group or all
resources I picked? All child properties of the resource or all
properties I picked?
>> If I choose just the 'set of properties' interpretation, I can
>> separate properties with a '|' character, but I can't add any specific
>> extra explanation to the my:foobar predicate in the display. The
>> problems swap if interpreted the other way. Likewise for resources.
>>
>> Do we want different properties to address this distinction? We could
>> specify that there would be no conflict resolution, so both
>> properties' directives would show up. Or should we pick just one
>> interpretation, as we already did before (sort of, by specifying which
>> domain a content *Format was valid for)?
>
> Waiting for clarification of the above part befre answering.
>
>> As mentioned above, are we interested in making *Format available to
>> Groups? Unlike *Style, there would probably have to be some conflict
>> resolution where the more specific domain formats would override the
>> group scoped ones. If I wanted to say that all labels should end with
>> ':,' it would be easier with a Group.
>
> That would indeed be convenient.
>
>> Would all formats be group-wise applicable?
>
> I don't understand what you mean here.
Could one use resourceFormat, valueFormat, and propertyFormat as well as
labelFormat with a fresnel:Group.
>> Lastly, does contentNoValue apply to every formatting it's used in?
>> It clearly doesn't make sense in a valueFormat since one must be
>> missing the entire triple in a model, not just a value. It makes
>> sense for propertyFormat and intereferes with label resolution in
>> labelFormat. I can't think of how to implement it smoothly for
>> resources, especially specific instances, but I don't think it should
>> be applied at that level anyways (and this is irrelevant if
>> resourceFormat can't be used on a Group).
>
> Yes, it is irrelevant in several cases. We should just forbid it to
> appear where it does not make sense.
Ok.
--
Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
http://simile.mit.edu/
Received on Thu Jul 07 2005 - 17:22:27 EDT