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

RE: Meeting Summary - 05 March 2007

From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:25:54 -0000
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D3E411D3@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: <Rhys.Lewis@volantis.com>, "Christian Timmerer \(ITEC\)" <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>

All,

One of the key concepts behind the DDR is the ability to extend.
Designed correctly, this will permit compliant DDR solutions to embrace
a multitude of sources of information, perhaps working collectively,
perhaps merged. It is one of the Requirements we have agreed upon.
However, for the purposes of our Core Vocabulary, we will focus on a
small set of key device information that we believe will provide the
maximum initial benefit to those who want to achieve basic content
adaptation (primarily addressing the diversity of mobile devices). This
does not preclude others thinking about alternative information spaces,
for existing and emerging use cases. We hope that the development of
these other solutions will benefit from observing the work we do here in
DDWG.

Futhermore, we expect existing (legacy) repositories, including private
instances, to find value in extending to be compatible with the eventual
DDR API so that all device information can be available to decision
mechanisms. Such mechanisms may include various selection approaches
like DISelect, JSTL and conditional constructs in many popular Web
server languages (PHP, Perl, Java etc.) and many proprietary solutions,
including the business logic that may be able to make decisions based on
information from the DDR.

The DDR API, the Core Vocabulary and (hopefully) a corpus of information
to accompany that vocabulary, will provide a minimum standardised
support mechanism for content adaptation when coupled with a
contextually-sensitive decision mechanism. More sophisticated adaptation
solutions can emerge from this basis, such as the case suggested by
Christian, either through natural evolution of the technology, or
through embracing existing open/commercial solutions.

Rhys reminds us that there are other communities who have an interest in
the DDR, and they will have concepts they believe should be included in
the ontology. Whether such things are also represented in the Core
Vocabulary will depend on whether they are suitable for repository
storage, and whether they are essential to support basic content
adaptation. Rhys mentions bandwidth, for example, which is something of
interest to our OMA colleagues. The concept of bandwidth is something
that deserves mention in an ontology covering Web-enabled devices.
Consequently there would need to be a way to represent it in a
vocabulary to meet the requirements expressed in the ontology. In terms
of the delivery context, we then need to consider things like "available
bandwidth" and "maximum bandwidth". In the case of the former, this is
not something that can be fixed in a repository. It needs to be
discovered from elsewhere, such as the network infrastructure or the
device itself. Maximum bandwidth might apply to the device, in which
case it is a repository candidate (and therefore a vocabulary
candidate), or it might apply to the network, which might not be fixed
and therefore not a repository candidate. Finally, there's the issue of
its necessity for basic content adaptation. Does bandwidth have as much
of a role to play when compared to other possible data? Many would argue
that it is more important to know the size of the device screen, whether
it has a pointer, or a keyboard etc. For this reason, it may be agreed
that bandwidth is a Vocabulary candidate but not a Core Vocabulary
candidate.

Of course, those who are concerned with audio/video streaming may see
bandwidth as significantly more important, compared to knowing what kind
of pointing mechanism the device supports. For now, though, we are
likely to focus on the needs of adaptation of ordinary/traditional Web
content (text, static images, screen rendering, document structure, user
interaction etc.).

So, for those who are reading this and wondering if DDWG is going to
address your specific needs for specific data in the DDR, please note
that group must focus on the Core. But because we are required to
consider how to be extensible and to scale, we will be making it
possible to do so within the generic design of the ontology and the API.
Your assistance in this effort will be most welcome.

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Rhys Lewis
Sent: 07 March 2007 12:42
To: Christian Timmerer (ITEC); Jo Rabin; public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 05 March 2007


Hi Christian,  

Thanks for posting the list of sorts of capabilities you were thinking
about.

You're right that some of these might be considered out of scope for the
DDWG itself, but I think most are actually potentially in-scope for
parts of the ontology that might be used by other folks.

Network capabilities (bearer, bandwidth etc...) are of interest to the
OMA group that is also involved in work associated with the ontology. In
fact it's one of their major use cases, so I'd expect to see those
characteristics appear in the ontology. It remains to be seen whether
DDWG wants these too.

Adaptation capabilities, transcoding ability etc. is an area we've not
looked at in any of the groups involved with the ontology as far as I
can recall. That's probably just because, historically, browsers and
devices haven't been able to do this. That is changing and I can see
this being an area of potential interest going forward. 

Thanks for bringing these up. 

Best wishes
Rhys

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Christian Timmerer (ITEC)
Sent: 06 March 2007 13:23
To: 'Jo Rabin'; public-ddwg@w3.org
Cc: christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at
Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 05 March 2007



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 Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:26:08 UTC

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