Re: [Gzz] REPOST: PEG: Alter Canvas2D vocab to support transclusions

[Benja Fallenstein]

Matti Katila wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> > The failure of taking this into account means that there cannot
> > be transclusions of a node, i.e. one node cannot be placed
> > on multiple papers; in Fenfire, transclusion must be supported
> > for *anything*, i.e., whenever some thing is in a "context,"
> > it must be possible to place it in more than one context.
> >
> > In order to make nodes transcludable, the vocabulary
> > must be changed.
>
> Making clones is something what I wouldn't do in word-processing.
> Same with pictures. If you are talkking about mindmap thing we should not 
> mess it up with canvas2d which is "making notes" - not "making clone 
> notes".
>
> If you really want to do clones, you also need to make a new api for it 
> (similar like ppactions) because pp should not do a such thing.
>
> CanvasView2D can be programmed to render also these clone notes.


We have discussed this at length on IRC, without coming to an agreement. 
Here's my summary (keep in mind that it's from *my* POV):

- Mudyc agrees that transclusion of nodes is needed for some things, 
e.g. mindmapping, but not for some other applications of 2D canvases, 
such as 'general "text"'.

- Mudyc thinks that there should be two vocabularies, Canvas2D and 
MindMap, which do the same thing except that MindMap allows for 
transclusion of notes and Canvas2D doesn't.

- I believe that there should be only one vocabulary; if transclusion 
isn't needed, use the same vocabulary, and simply don't put a node on 
more than one canvas / position on a single canvas.

- In e.g. PP, if you decide you do not need transclusions of nodes, 
simply don't make it available through the UI. The vocabulary should 
still support it.

- In particular, I think it's important that the computer doesn't make a 
difference between "transcludable" and "not transcludable" nodes. In a 
UI that supports transclusions (such as the full Fenfire system) it 
should be possible to transclude any node if the user says "transclude."

(If one node used a vocabulary that doesn't allow for transclusion, then 
 that node could not be transcluded.)

- Changing Canvas2D now doesn't mean that we'll need to change it again 
if we want to, e.g., use named connections in half a year; this can be 
implemented orthogonally in another vocab. Transclusions are special 
because they cannot be implemented in an orthogonal vocabulary; this is 
generally the case for RDF vocabs (if you design a vocab that places 
some node into some context, you need to take transclusion into account).

- I have always assumed that there'll be a single vocabulary for 
"placing something on a spatial canvas," and that it's up to the user to 
use this general tool for mindmapping, text editing, note taking, or 
whatever. I still think there should be a single vocabulary allowing for 
all that, and at least some of these uses definitely use transclusions.

- Benja