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

RE: Meeting Summary - 05 March 2007

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 04:51:33 -0500
Message-ID: <815E07C915F39742A29E5587B3A7FA1929C0A45A@lk0-cs0.int.link2exchange.com>
To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>

To add to what Rhys just said, the DDWG's charter [2] limits it devices
in the sense of things users typically hold in their hand. Specifically,
from the Charter:

"For the purposes of this charter Mobile devices are Web-enabled devices
that are normally used away from fixed locations and are manufactured
specifically to be portable and usable while being moved."

However, equally the charter makes it clear that the output of the group
should be extensible for other purposes: 

"Consulting with other groups (such as those in OMA) to ensure that the
interface designs are sufficiently flexible to form the basis of
repositories outside of the mobile context (it is not within the scope
of the group's charter to ascertain non-Mobile requirements);"

So if you have specific things in mind ref proxies and gateways it would
be useful to know.

Thanks
Jo

[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/mwi-ddwg2-charter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Rhys Lewis
> Sent: 06 March 2007 09:44
> To: Christian Timmerer (ITEC); Michael(tm) Smith; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Cc: Rotan Hanrahan; Cedric Kiss
> Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 05 March 2007
> 
> 
> Hi Christian,
> 
> It's an interesting question. I'd just point out that the DIWG
Glossary
> [1], where we expect to add the definitions about device description,
> already includes other terms that might be appropriate for other parts
of
> the delivery chain. This includes definitions relating to content
> adaptation.
> 
> DIWG elected to restrict the definition of device to an end user
device.
> That seems to match current usage of the term and the scope of the
DDWG
> work items.
> 
> If you have comments about definitions for parts of the delivery chain
> other than the end user device, or requests for new ones, it might be
> worth considering posing them to DIWG, since that is where that work
tends
> to happen.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Rhys Lewis, chair DIWG
> 
> [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 Christian Timmerer (ITEC)
> Sent: 06 March 2007 09:10
> To: 'Michael(tm) Smith'; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Cc: 'Rotan Hanrahan'; 'Cedric Kiss';
christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at
> Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 05 March 2007
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Michael,
> 
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Definition of "Device Description"
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   - We have agreement that we can't start building an ontology
> >     until we have a common understanding of "device description"
> >
> >   - We seem to have agreement about the need to make the
> >     definition of "device description" more generic than just
> >     being limited to the delivery of a web page, but instead to
> >     any aspect, but with the DDWG as a group focusing on the
> >     specific aspect that has to do with adaptation.
> >
> >   RESOLVED: Do one more iteration on a proposal what is meant by
> >   "device" and "device description" and send out for public
> >   discussion by end of this week.
> [Christian Timmerer (ITEC)] From my point of view the current
definition
> of device [1] is limited to end user devices. I'm wondering whether
DDWG
> will extend this definition to any apparatus along the delivery path
that
> serves the overall aim of device independence. I know there exists
terms
> like proxy or gateway but there is a need for describing them as well,
> e.g., for adaptation purposes.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the proposal by the end of this week.
> 
> Thank you.
> Best regards,
>  -Christian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/
> 
> 
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Starting the ontology work
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >    We're using the Protege application and need to understand how
> >    to break up Protege projects for group work.
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Reports from editors.
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   - Ecosystem: we had a contribution related to this on the
> >     internal mail list and are continuing to discuss it
> >   - We made some updatet to the wiki (uploaded "Top-ten
> >     properties" on wiki)
> >   - responded to OMA
> >   - API and structure have not started yet
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Attendees
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   Pontus Carlsson (Drutt) [scribe]
> >   Martin Jones (Volantis)
> >   Andrea Trasatti (M:Metrics/WURFL)
> >   Cedric Kiss (W3C)
> >   Kevin Smith (Vodafone)
> >   Rafael Casero (SATEC)
> >   Rotan Hanrahan (MobileAware)
> >   Jo Rabin (dotMobi)
> >   Rodrigo Garcia (CTIC)
> >   Nacho Marin (CTIC)
> >   Michael(tm) Smith (W3C) [late]
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 09:51:41 UTC

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