W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg-comments@w3.org > May 2008

RE: Your comments on Device Description Repository Simple API ( LC-1969)

Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:46:27 +0200
To: "rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Cc: "public-ddwg-comments@w3.org" <public-ddwg-comments@w3.org>
Message-id: <93AA9E47B82F684A868C217766F48905039FA7DDC7@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet>

I accept this response

-----Mensaje original-----
De: rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com [mailto:rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com]
Enviado el: domingo, 25 de mayo de 2008 22:22
CC: public-ddwg-comments@w3.org
Asunto: Re: Your comments on Device Description Repository Simple API ( LC-1969)

 Dear José Manuel Cantera ,

The Mobile Web Initiative Device Description Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Device Description Repository Simple API published on 4 Apr 2008. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has been implemented in the new version of the document available at:

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at public-ddwg-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 5 June 2008. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.


For the Mobile Web Initiative Device Description Working Group, Matt Womer W3C Staff Contact

 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-DDR-Simple-API-20080404/


Your comment on 3 Vocabularies:
> If an implementation decides to add an additional value to an
> enumerated property, such as supportedImageFormats, that new value
> will be in the same namespace as the Core Voc or in another namespace?
> How a call from the API will note this fact, as the set of values in
> an enumeration are represented as non-namespaced Strings?
> How collisions between values are going to be avoided?

Working Group Resolution (LC-1969):
The introduction of new properties, new aspects or new values for enumerations constitutes the creation of a new vocabulary. It is possible for a vocabulary to reference a previous version (to avoid having to redefine all of the properties/aspects/values), but this does not avoid the requirement for the new vocabulary to have a separate namespace. An implementation may support multiple vocabularies, and this is supported by the API, so it is permitted for extended vocabularies to co-exist with their predecessors without causing confusion.

Only the values of enumeration types as listed in a vocabulary are associated with the namespace. Additional values may be permitted by an implementation, but if avoidance of value clashes is necessary then the introduction of new vocabularies to include such new values is advised.

In general, the design and implementation of extensible vocabularies is an open and ongoing issue, which in conjunction with the design of an ontology of the delivery context is something that the DDWG will be deferring to the UWA Working Group. Meanwhile, the mechanism described above will suffice for the DDR Simple API.

Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 08:48:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:41:40 UTC