conor dowling wrote:
> 1. very pedantic but: why mix the terms "Property" (O.O.ish) and
> "Resource", very RDF. Why not ...
> <inter:Resource>
> ...
> <inter:Predicate>
> <inter:uri>http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox</inter:uri>
> <inter:label>...</inter:label>
> <inter:literal>xxx</inter:literal>
> </inter:Predicate>
Because I think you are mixing terms from different "worlds". Either you
speak of:
- resources that have properties and property values which can
themselves be literals or other resources
- or statements which are made of a subject, predicate and object.
Mixing terms from both does not sound good to me.
> or hide the RDF:
> <inter:Object>
> <inter:id>
> <inter:Property>
> etc ...
>
> The latter is better for generic content builders - those that can take
> content from SQL results or basic XML etc.
With this one you introduce new intermediate concepts that further
increase the distance between the source data and what you manipulate in
the styling phase. It might be more generic and fit better with the
tools you mention, but does it bring to us?
> 2. I think most builders would do their own "content-before",
> "content-after" stuff. Surely a list knows how to comma and stop itself,
> a tree, how to make columns?
That is not really the point. Fresnel is supposed to model RDF
presentation knowledge that is portable across RDF browsers. This is
presentation knowledge, and it is easily shared between browsers. If we
remove everything from Fresnel just because it can be handled by other
tools and languages applied downward in the presentation process,
Fresnel becomes useless.
My position about this kind of issue is: if we can model some specific
presentation knowledge in Fresnel, then do it provided that it makes
sense and that it is portable. So unless there is a really good reason
to drop content{Before,After,...}, I'd like to keep them in Fresnel.
--
Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex FRANCE http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Wed May 04 2005 - 06:25:49 EDT