W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > April 2007

RE: DD Definition

From: Christian Timmerer \(ITEC\) <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:09:11 +0200
To: "'Rhys Lewis'" <rhys@volantis.com>, "'Rotan Hanrahan'" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>
Cc: <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
Message-ID: <002801c77467$533f4f60$f9bdee20$@timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>


Dear Ryhs,
  sorry for late reply. I don't think adding notes/examples to the DI
glossary would necessarily lead to a encyclopedia. Notes/examples should be
as brief and concise as the definition. See below an attempt for the
definition of device description.

Furthermore, you may group related terms/definitions to
subsections/clusters.

Thanks.
Best regards,
 -Christian


Term: Device Description

Definition:  A device description is a formal definition within some context
of the named attributes and their permissible values [which may take the
form of lists, ranges, or other patterns] which are applicable to entities
of interest in that context.

Note: The context needs to be further defined within the organization that
adopts this definition. 

Example: UAProf used for describing the display resolution of a mobile
device


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Rhys Lewis
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: Rotan Hanrahan; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: DD Definition
> 
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I just wanted to say that there are ways to add some level of
> additional
> explanation within the DIWG Glossary [1], which is the intended home
> for
> this definition. We found the need to do this with other terms. It's
> quite
> normal for formal definitions of things to appear rather opaque. It
> seems
> to be a natural consequence of precision in definitions. The approach
> in
> the glossary has been to add informative text as additional paragraphs
> after the formal definition. We have tended to try and keep this
> additional material relatively concise, as the document is a glossary
> not
> an encyclopedia.
> 
> I think it would be appropriate to add some additional explanation in
> this
> case, once we've agreed on the definition itself.
> 
> Best wishes
> Rhys
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> Sent: 29 March 2007 10:21
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: DD Definition [WAS: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007]
> 
> 
> It might not be the form of language used by bloggers, which is not
> surprising as this is a formal definition. The definition was reached
> after much debate by the active members of the DD group, and while it
> may
> not be perfect, we felt it was sufficient to capture our best
> understanding.
> 
> This led to the text being published on the public mailing list,
> following
> one of our regular weekly meetings (in which the active participants
> spend
> an hour discussing the week's issues). We are certainly interested in
> public comment and contributions, and the observation by Christian is
> most
> welcome. We will add notes and examples in the wiki in due course.
> 
> The use of "some context" does give flexibility to the user of the
> definition. We anticipate (hope) that it will be adopted beyond the
> DDWG,
> though it's likely we'll have to negotiate a few adjustments to the
> wording.
> 
> It was certainly not the intention, as indicated by Luca in his public
> comment on this W3C list, to create something that would cause people
> to
> laugh at the DD's work. We take our work seriously, and the production
> of
> a formal definition reflects this. If those who have understood the
> formal
> English description would like to propose some less-formal
> interpretations, these would be useful (especially as they would tell
> us
> what other people think we have said, rather than just what we
> ourselves
> think we have said).
> 
> Thank you for your support.
> 
> ---Rotan.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Christian Timmerer (ITEC)
> Sent: 29 March 2007 09:39
> To: 'Luca Passani'; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Cc: christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at
> Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Luca, all,
>   as someone who's not "deep inside esoteric W3C lingo" I cannot make
> this
> observation that the definition means nothing.
> 
> My two cents are as follows:
>  - However, the definition could be extended by notes/examples that
> helps
> the reader to better understand the definition.
>  - The wording "some context" in first part of the definition causes
> some
> confusion to me because to me it means that this context needs to be
> defined by those who are adopting this definition. I'm wondering
> whether
> this interpretation is correct/intentional.
> 
> Thanks.
> Best regards,
>  -Christian
> 
> :--
> :- Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Christian Timmerer
> :- Department of Information Technology (ITEC)
> :- Klagenfurt University, Austria
> :- http://research.timmerer.com
> :----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> >> Visit the IT Campus Carinthia
> >> http://www.it-campus.at
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Luca Passani
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:52 AM
> > To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> >
> >
> >
> > "A device description is a formal definition within some context of
> the
> > named attributes and their permissible values [which may take the
> form
> > of lists, ranges, or other patterns] which are applicable to entities
> > of interest in that context,"
> >
> > this is not english. It means nothing. It may mean something to those
> > deep inside esoteric W3C lingo. Certainly not suitable for a blog as
> > it is unless you want people to laugh at DD's work.
> >
> > Luca
> >
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2007 14:09:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:51 GMT