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

RE: Device Description definition

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 03:06:36 -0500
Message-ID: <815E07C915F39742A29E5587B3A7FA1929C0A434@lk0-cs0.int.link2exchange.com>
To: <Rhys.Lewis@volantis.com>, "Andrea Trasatti" <andrea@trasatti.it>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>

Hi Rhys

There was a discussion of Andrea's points on the call yesterday - while
you were ensconced in a British Airways 747, I would think  - can I
refer you to that and to ACTION-12, which would be a better thread for
this discussion?

Thanks
Jo 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Rhys Lewis
> Sent: 06 March 2007 01:45
> To: Andrea Trasatti; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Device Description definition
> 
> 
> Hello Andrea,
> 
> Can you help me understand why you think that the scope of delivery
> context is restricted by giving an example of a characteristic that
would
> be part of device description and would not be part of delivery
context?
> 
> My understanding of DDWG's concept of device description was that it
was
> primarily to support content adaptation, or at least for delivery of
web
> materials to a device. That is the same scope as delivery context is
meant
> to be, so it seemed reasonable to me that one could be a subset of the
> other. If there are characteristics that are part of device
description
> that are not part of delivery context, then my assumption is clearly
> false.
> 
> Best wishes
> Rhys
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti
> Sent: 02 March 2007 21:19
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Device Description definition
> 
> 
> Il giorno 02/mar/07, alle ore 10:07, Rhys Lewis ha scritto:
> 
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I'm trying to bring the discussion back to the specific topic of the
> > definition of the term 'device description'.
> >
> > After a lot of very useful discussion, I'm minded to:
> >
> > 1) suggest that we use the text I originally proposed along the
lines
> > of:
> >
> >
> > Device Description:
> >
> > - That specific part of the delivery context directly related to the
> > hardware and software of the device.
> 
> I'm jumping in late, even later than Jo, who apparently regained the
lost
> time very quickly.
> I have read all the posts of course and have my opinion.
> 
> I don't understand why we are restricting the "device description"
> definition to the delivery context. It should be a more general
> description that may cover ANY aspect of the device and that in our
> specific case is limited to the delivery context.
> 
> I think that the definitions that actually matched my idea of DD are
the
> earlier ones. This is my definition of device description:
> a collection of attribute-value pairs that detail the features and
> capabilities of a device
> 
> In my understanding when the term "set" was used it was meant as a
> collection while it was later interpreted as a "collection of devices
> matching a set of parameters". This means that we went from something
that
> is supposed to describe all the details of a single device to a
"filter"
> that will return a list of devices.
> 
> I would like to first define what a single description is and then we
can
> talk about how you can group descriptions.
> 
> - Andrea
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 08:06:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:13 UTC