W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [fresnel] Fresnel: State of the Art?

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:18:10 +0000
To: Axel Rauschmayer <axel@rauschma.de>, "fresnel@inria.fr" <fresnel@inria.fr>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|636a39d9d59e2f319dfcced1333e0680m11JIN02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C78E2AF2.FE8B%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
I am only a user, so not into understanding it!

We use fresnel for our details panes in rkbexplorer, and for the why? Pages
and google gadgets as well (have been using it for quite a few years now).
It has been pretty effective, and productive; it has been relatively easy to
add the new ontological synonyms as they have come along, so we can really
use the open web of data. For example the homepage things.

It may also be that the version we use is rather old, as I think there are
things like f:alternateProperties or maybe it is f:mergeProperties that we
can't use.

However, it is now a bit fragile to use - not because of the software (we
use Jfresnel), but by the time you have over 800 lines of fresnel n3 with
terms coming from more than 15 ontologies, it becomes a bit like writing
machine code. And as hard to debug.

I keep wanting to write a system to generate or maintain it, but can't find
the time.
Mind you, not sure what it would look like in Protégé - maybe that is the
answer? But then would need to find the time to investigate, and in the end
it ain't broke so I haven't fixed it. :-)

But it is certainly an appropriate component in the scheme of the Web of
Data, and a polishing might be beneficial, especially if it resulted in
support tools.


On 01/02/2010 14:09, "Axel Rauschmayer" <axel@rauschma.de> wrote:

> I think, it would make sense at some point in time to work on "Fresnel 2".
> My experiences (while implementing editing extensions for Fresnel for Hyena
> [1]) were as follows:
> - Fresnel works great for editing, with a few extensions. I've found some
> things to be too complicated (mainly formats and the rules for applying them)
> for my taste, so I would simplify those for Fresnel 2.
> - For HTML *display*, I now prefer templating (with ideas similar to JSP). It
> gives you more control and is conceptually very simple. RDF templating would
> benefit from standardizing,  too; I've just recently seen a paper somewhere
> that describes (yet another...) RDF templating mechanism.
> - Fresnel is still useful for editing and for targetting multiple display
> architectures (e.g. HTML and PDF, e.g. via iText). It is perfect when a form
> is all you need.
> [1] http://hypergraphs.de/hyena/
> Does this make sense? Does anyone (dis)agree (possibly vehemently ;-) ?
> Axel
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 14:44 , Aldo Bucchi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was looking at the current JFresnel codebase and the project seems
>> to have little movement. I was wondering if this is the state of the
>> art regarding "Declarative Presentation Knowledge for RDF" or have
>> efforts moved elsewhere and I have missed it?
>> Thanks!
>> A
>> -- 
>> Aldo Bucchi
>> skype:aldo.bucchi
>> http://www.univrz.com/
>> http://aldobucchi.com/
>> This message is only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please do not distribute or copy this
>> communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify us immediately
>> by
>> return e-mail.
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 19:19:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:03 UTC