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

RE: Device Description definition

From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:49:12 -0000
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D3EA35D3@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: "Smith, Kevin, VF-Group" <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>

The issue of device-specific information, and dynamic information, is an
issue for the OMA DCAP (see previous liaison) and the DIWG DCI. We hope
that DDWG and these other groups (DIWG hopefully morphing to the new UWA
group) will be working from the same ontology, though we will have
separate vocabularies. The DD core vocabulary will only deal with static
properties that do not identify a particular instance (e.g. the value of
the IMEI is an instance property, whereas the fact that an IMEI is
present is a device property).

By having a common ontology, the various groups will be able to share
information, and build interoperable technologies. Nevertheless, the
partitioning of the information space will depend on who is responsible
for what.

I fully expect our OMA colleagues to engage with respect to the dynamic

As for the effect this has on a "device description", we (in DDWG)
should restrict ourselves to that part that has a bearing on the DDR,
which has the partition of the information space dealing with static
properties. I believe that the semantics of "Device Description" may
vary for other contexts.

To this end, there was an action given to Jo Rabin to summarise a
definition, and this was circulated to the group members. It appears to
have support, and unless there are major problems, we'll agree it and
publish it soon. I will, however, point out part of the qualifying text:

"The DDWG's work products MUST meet the requirements of 'device' as
defined in the DI Delivery Context and MUST be reasonably extensible to
accommodate other descriptions of device and their contexts that go with
such definitions."

So, for DDWG we will have a definition that suits our charter, and it
will be flexible enough to accommodate other uses, such as the one you


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Smith, Kevin, VF-Group
Sent: 20 March 2007 16:53
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Device Description definition

Hi all,

Regarding the scope of the device description definition: static
properties are in scope of the repository, but I imagine we want to
exclude those which are specific to an individual device and are
sensitive. I'm thinking specifically of an individual mobile device's
IMEI but it may also include installed certificates. Is there a way we
should represent this in the Device Description Definition?

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 17:49:41 UTC

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