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

RE: Meeting Summary - 05 March 2007

From: Christian Timmerer \(ITEC\) <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:23:24 +0100
To: "'Jo Rabin'" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>
Cc: <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
Message-ID: <00be01c75ff2$9f347cd0$dd9d7670$@timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>


Thanks Jo, Rhys for clarification.

> So if you have specific things in mind ref proxies and gateways it
> would
> be useful to know.
[Christian Timmerer (ITEC)] ... network capabilities (e.g., avail. bw),
de-/encoding (e.g., JPEG, MPEG-4, etc.) capabilities, and adaptation
capabilities in general (e.g., transcoding from MPEG-2 to MPEG.4,
grayscaling, temporal/spatial scaling).

This might be useful for providing adaptation services within the delivery
path enabling device independence at the end user device. However, I agree
with you that this might be out of scope of this WG. 

Thanks anyway...
Best regards,
 -Christian

> 
> 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 13:24:04 UTC

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