- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:21:06 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:41:52AM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >What I like about "lens" is that a lens, almost by definition, somehow alters > >-- magnifies, distorts, refracts, corrects, whatever -- the view. As I see it, > >people are seeing the context from a particular (point of) "view", > >"perspective", or "angle", but they are seeing it _through_ the "lens". It is > >this instrument -- the lens -- that interests us, not the thinking underlying > >the design of the lens. ... > How about: "context lenses" ? > > A context oriented lens is basically a specific kind of view. Hey, that's not bad! Together with "corrective lenses", "historical lenses", and "zoom lenses" -- without getting _too_ fancy with the typology -- I see the makings of a halfway entertaining presentation. Tom P.S. With "a specific kind of view", I don't think you mean to imply that "context lens" is somehow formally a sub-class of some broader notion of view, do you? Just checking. -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 15:21:40 UTC