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

[VOC] Shortname? (Was Re: [VOC] Comments on the current version of the vocabulary)

From: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:54:41 -0500
Cc: José Manuel Cantera Fonseca <jmcf@tid.es>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <489A3D19-ED9B-4133-83A1-DC704E9FC4BB@w3.org>
To: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>

Hi All,

I've been working on this publication with Rotan, and it occurs to me  
that we never discussed a shortname, I proposed:
	ddr-core-vocabulary

Which would result in URIs like:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-ddr-core-vocabulary-@@date@@/
and
	http://www.w3.org/TR/ddr-core-vocabulary

Any objections to those?

-Matt
On Dec 12, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:

> As the group has already taken a formal resolution to publish the  
> document based on the Editor’s draft at the time of the resolution,  
> these and any subsequent comments regarding the document will be  
> directed towards the subsequent publication. Given that there are  
> several outstanding issues to consider (e.g. the definitions of  
> aspects, some additional properties etc.), the subsequent  
> publication will involve substantive updates.
>
> I urge the document editors to take on board any comments that have  
> appeared since the publication resolution and to reflect these in  
> the ongoing “editor’s draft”.
>
> We will be seeking further comments (from the public) when the  
> current draft is published, hopefully in the next few days.
>
> ---Rotan.
>
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]  
> On Behalf Of José Manuel Cantera Fonseca
> Sent: 12 December 2007 14:21
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: [VOC] Comments on the current version of the vocabulary
>
> Commenting [1]
>
> Editorial Comments:
>
> Abstract
> ---------
> + This document describes the Device Description Repository Core  
> Vocabulary for Content Adaptation in the Mobile Web, described in  
> the charter of the Device Descriptions Working Group, as well as the  
> process by which the vocabulary was defined
>
> Introduction
> -------------
>
> + The vocabulary makes reference to the ontology for the Web  
> Delivery Context which is being developed by the UWA [reference to  
> the UWA -WG] Working Group. [UWA-Ontology].
>
> + I would suggest to drop the sentence "Where necessary, the  
> ontology can be extended." or to rephrase it to make it more clear  
> the intended meaning
>
> 3 Properties
> -------------
>
> + Reading the document is not clear to me what is the actual  
> property identifier. I know that it is supposed to be the name in  
> the section title such as "3.1 vendor" but I think it will be better  
> to make explicit the  actual property identifier. Suggested:
>
> 3.1 'vendor' property
>
> 3.1.1 Description
>
> bla,bla
>
> 3.1.2 Property Identifier
> vendor
>
> 3.1.3 type
> bla, bla
>
> + 3.5.6 Identified as an important property by the DDWG in its Top N  
> finding. [Put a reference to the document] Present in UAProf [Put a  
> reference to UAProf]
>
> B Acknowledgements
>
> A small change,
>
> + José Manuel Cantera Fonseca, Telefónica Investigación y Desarrollo
>
> --- Additional Comments ---
>
> + The document does not talk about namespaces and property  
> namespacing, I think it is important to indicate that the Core  
> Vocabulary Properties are within a namespace identified by a URI to  
> be defined
> + Enumerations. I think we need an XMLSchema definition of the  
> enumerations described for certain properties in the vocabulary,  
> such as inputDevices. Also, the same comment as in the property id  
> applies here. We need to make explicit that the values put in the  
> table under the value column are the actual values that the  
> enumeration can contain i.e. those strings. I think this can be   
> made explicit by means of the XMLSchema enumeration definition.
> Last but not least, I'm a bit worried about the 'other' value you  
> mention in the draft.
> I think we need to drop it from the value column and say that  
> specific implementations can provide more values to this enumeration.
>
> Nothing more so far
>
> Best Regards
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/corevocabulary/071204.html
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:54:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:15 UTC