Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 10/1/05, Dave Pawson <davep@d...> wrote: > On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 14:34 -0500, Peter Hunsberger wrote: > > > > > 3) presentation specific structures that reflect some (perhaps > > abstract) denormalized, hierarchical presentation model. > > I don't know of any hierarchical presentation models Peter, do you? > Unless you mean docbook or similar, which I don't see as presentation > layer. > > Most of the presentation formats I know of are pretty flat. Guess that depends on how many levels you want before you consider something a hierarchy... Even HTML would seem to qualify (eg, html, body, table, tr, td -- then you get to define a cell). However, just to make it clear I'm not talking about the final presentation layer, but rather a model just prior to presentation. As such, something like Docbook definitely qualifies. In spite of all that, the main point is that if you're getting close to something that humans are going to be dealing with you don't want the humans jumping through hoops dealing with id and idref (or similar) to figure out how things are related, but rather you end up spending the effort to denormalize and create structure so the humans can figure out how the things are related in a more natural fashion. The better way of defining the continuum I'm getting at might be the degree to which the data stream is automated vs. requires human interaction... -- Peter Hunsberger
|
