- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 03:06:36 -0500
- 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