Chris Bizer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> reading Stefano's mail I really don't understand what he is making all this
> fuss about. He is saying exactly the same as the rest of the team beside of
> that he doesn't want to support the box model (or presentational-part of the
> style vocabulary as Emmanuel calls it) in Longwell. Beside of this
> difference both workflows are the same.
The 'fuss', as you describe it, is normally called 'architectural
disagreement' and is something you are going to incounter rather
frequently when you participate in those 'design harmonization' efforts
that are sometimes called 'standardizations'.
My concerns on the table are rather explicit:
1) sparql is *NOT* enough to perform aggregated selections as
performed by Fresnel (if so, I would be glad to just use it and stop
arguing with you!)
2) if a tree representation of the selection is made explicit, you
don't need the fresnel style part to achieve device independence of view
rendering. (so, not only you reuse code between fresnel implementations,
but you reuse code from *everybody* else!)
3) if you want to do an RDF-based styling language, go ahead, but this
is another concern and a problem that I don't have, nor care to spend
time on.
PS: this is my last post on this subject on this mailing list. I'll wait
a few days for people to subscribe to 'fresnel-dev_at_simile.mit.edu' and
then I'll continue the conversation overthere.
And for those subscribed to this list that don't really care about
Fresnel, apologies for all the noise.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi
Research Scientist Digital Libraries Research Group
Massachusetts Institute of Technology location: E25-131C
77 Massachusetts Ave telephone: +1 (617) 253-1096
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 email: stefanom at mit . edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon May 09 2005 - 17:07:25 EDT