RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?

One of the mobile devices I use on a regular basis is a wireless-enabled iPaq. I use it at wifi hotspots, particularly at airports and cafes. Its communication pathway does not involve what you would describe as a mobile carrier. It does not have a SIM card, and obviously does not have an IMEI. Yet I consider this device to be a legitimate mobile device.
 
I also have a GPRS card. It has an IMEI. But you can't tell from the IMEI if I have inserted the card into one of my laptops, my tablet or that slightly older iPaq I have that has a PCMCIA adaptor sleeve. And what about when I used to have the GPRS plugged into my old notebook and used "connection sharing" to link my iPaq via ad-hoc so it could surf?
 
Sure, IMEI mapping might work in most use cases, but not all.
 
---Rotan.

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Luca Passani [mailto:luca.passani@openwave.com] 
 Sent: Mon 25/07/2005 19:39 
 To: public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org 
 Cc: 
 Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?
 
 

 This is an interesting point, which brings about two questions:

  

 -          since you work for O2, I am assuming you know better. Honestly, I was assuming that there is no such thing as a device without IMEI as long as it is accepted on a carrier’s Network. Don’t BlackBerry’s have IMEIs? I know that operators have databases of IMEI and they are building services on top of IMEI info. 

 -          Does O2 possess a way to associate IMEI to device capabilities? if yes, how is this achieved?

  

 Luca

  

 
  _____  


 From: Holley Kevin (Centre) [mailto:Kevin.Holley@O2.com] 
 Sent: 25 July 2005 17:28
 To: Luca Passani; public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org
 Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?

  

 So what happens if the mobile device doesn't have an IMEI?

  

 For example, a PDA based browser.

  

 Regards,

  

 Kevin

  

  -----Original Message-----
  From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Luca Passani
  Sent: 22 July 2005 00:10
  To: public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?

  Yes, this is something we have discussed quite a few times in the WURFL community. The idea is to have an extra table to match the first part of the IMEI with a WURFL ID. This would allow an operator to easily detect device capabilities even without an HTTP Request coming from subscriber device.

  The reason why we have not embarked in such a project is that developers typically do not have access to a device IMEI to start with.

  Having said this, there is increasing interest in WURFL coming from operators, so I would say that IMEI support in WURFL is bound to happen sooner or later.

  If you like this proposition (and you have a database of IMEI to share and expertise in the field), please contact me offline. We could work together on this for the developer community’s benefit.

   

  Thanks  

   

  Luca

   

  
  _____  


  From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Victor Servin
  Sent: 21 July 2005 14:55
  To: Rotan Hanrahan
  Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org; www-mobile@w3.org; Steve Parker
  Subject: Re: Mobile phone capabilities list?

   

  well in the way i see it most mobile development today, are least for phones, are made towards content delivery and related things so u usuallay need full information about phonecapabilities i mean gprs type, Egprs type, Audio compatibility, video compatibility and so on. It will be very difficult to fullfill the needs of several companies and developers but it would be good to create a more standarized and extensible model to do it. It would be also great to improve IMEI databases cause if we think uaprofs are difficult to deal with, imei's are impossible. Its there any project to try to merge this two identifiers. In the end both of then are usefull to describe the same device, at least when we talk about cell phones. 

  VJS
  
   

  On 7/21/05, Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@mobileaware...com <mailto:Rotan.Hanrahan@mobileaware.com> > wrote: 

  Several companies create and maintain their own validated device information repositories, which are supersets of the information available in public. However, it takes great effort to create these repositories and they are generally created in support of specialised products. As a consequence, these repositories are out of reach because they are expensive. I am pleased to report that certain key suppliers of such repositories/products are participating in W3C MWI, with the hope that their experience may be applied to the situation that you suggest is the case today. An extensible, accurate, verified, trusted baseline repository of device descriptions is one of the items on the table, which requires the participants to examine carefully how such a repository might operate. Much of the work will be conducted with input from the wider community, so I welcome and encourage the feedback expressed on the public lists. 

   

  ---Rotan

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Steve Parker [mailto: sparker@well.com <mailto:sparker@well.com> ]
  Sent: 21 July 2005 00:30
  To: Rotan Hanrahan; Holley Kevin (Centre); www-mobile@w3.org
  Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?

  Formally, these are certainly the right standards/groups, but the track record is disappointing in practise. In my experience, the UAProf info actually supplied is not necessarily accurate or complete. The URLs are not always present or correct. There is no mechanism or procedure for correcting it - its entirely at the manufacturers' whim. Even when the data are ok, there's a lot of useful parameters missing from the standard. There's supposed to be a Java API, but I had to report a bug in the JSR reference implementation months after it was approved. It's very frustrating to anyone actually trying to cater for all the different devices right now. Standards are one thing, but to get something working, now, WURFL is the only show in town. I'm not an open source zealot, but WURFL has gone further faster than the standards bodies. It works as advertised, it's responsive, it's simple to use, it's user extensible .

   

  Steve

   -----Original Message-----
   From: www-mobile-request@w3.org [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
   Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:07 PM 
   To: Holley Kevin (Centre); www-mobile@w3.org
   Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
   Subject: RE: Mobile phone capabilities list?

   The UAProf information, where provided and validated, can provide some essential and objective information about mobile devices. It has been recognised, however, that in many domains of content authoring and adaptation that such information is insufficient. The DDWG will be exploring the bigger picture, and looking at ways that a general device description repository could be achieved, such that it can encompass UAProf and other sources of information, avoiding replication of services, and providing the necessary features of discovery, trust, efficiency and related information management issues. The DDWG is specifically directed to liaise with UAProf and other related groups to this end. Planned W3C Notes will explain in further detail, and these shall get a public airing during this year. Input from interested parties via the public mailing list will be encouraged. The group will also solicit specific information from key parties where appropriate. 

    

   I hope this adds some clarity.

    

   ---Rotan.

    

    [ ... see mailing list archive for previous messages ... ] 

   

 ===================================================== 

 This electronic message contains information from O2 which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately. 

 =====================================================

Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 20:48:55 UTC