RE: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0

It is a well established fact that the W3C Director is against breaking
the Web (not the "net").

Depending on how you choose to measure client capabilities, every
Web-enabled device belongs to some sub-category. Mobile Web-enabled
devices will soon outnumber fixed (traditional) Web-enabled devices. The
diversity that is seen in its extreme within the mobile world is also
seen to some degree in the non-mobile world. The need to address
diversity is therefore applicable to the entire Web.

The work of the DDWG supports the idea of maintaining a single Web. We
wish to enable authors "code" to standards, and enable the
infrastructure use agent detection (a part of context-awareness) to
guide any adaptation/selection processes necessary to deliver
appropriate representations of the authored resources.

Current agent-detection technologies are insufficient because in many
cases the determination of the agent is not supported by sufficient
understanding of what the agent requires. The proposed DDR fills this
gap.

The DDR will have its most immediate impact on the quality of content
presentation on the diversity of mobile devices, but it will also have
an impact on all other types of Web-enabled device.

Regards,
---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sam Sotiropoulos
Sent: 04 May 2006 22:52
To: Tim Berners-Lee
Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org; tag
Subject: Re: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0


Mr. Lee,

Just a few questions: I understood that you were against 'breaking the
net' so I am curious to see your comments on this spec. Is this extra
layer of complexity designed to cater to a sub-category of internet
enabled devices really needed?  Can we not code according to standards
and expect that the existing infrastructure and agent detection tools be
a sufficient model of approach?

Amiably,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
> I have suggested that the TAG and DAWG look at this spec.
>
> Glancing through
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DDR-requirements-20060410/
> the following things occur to me.
>
> A requirement:
>
> a) 2.11.  Use-case 1. Utilization of device description information 
> from the DDR
>
>   The requirements don't say anything about cacheing.
>
>     If really every single request for content from a phone goes 
> through the flow show, the server will be under intolerable load and a

> complete bottleneck.  It is clearly necessary for the content 
> provider, or an intermediate node, to keep a cache of previous 
> requests. This requires the cache control facilities
>
> and two informal thoughts:
>
> b) An unwritten requirement is that new technology is not invented 
> where existing technology exists.
>
> (For example, HTTP caching provides the facilities necessary (proxy 
> architecture, cache read-through, expiry time, etc) and do providing 
> the DDR lookup over HTTP clearly allows the client architecture.
> SPARQL may provide a suitable protocol)
>
> c) "The Device Vendor develops, manages (e.g. updates existing device 
> profiles when devices are upgraded)". That's interesting.  I 
> understood that in the past, device vendrors have nor always been 
> forthcoming with such information.  Will the DDR only use vendor data,

> or possibly third party data?  Clearly vendor data makes more sense, 
> so long as it is provided.  Presumably the DDR architecture is not 
> affected by this choice.
>
> Tim
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 08:50:57 UTC