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

RE: DD Definition [WAS: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007]

From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:26:06 +0100
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D3F0CCE1@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>

> NB having read it a few times I think "[which may take the form of lists, ranges, or other patterns]" makes for disjointed reading and is too much detail, 'permissible' implies a formal constraint and should suffice.

I agree. The subtext in [brackets] was there by way of explanation, but if we agree that there should be a separate (less formal) explanation to accompany the formal definition, then perhaps we can follow Kevin's approach.

As for Kevin's demonstration of moving from the abstract definition to the concrete definition for DDWG, this shows that there is merit in the definition as presented. It is good to include in the wiki [1] an explanation of how the definition would be made concrete for the restricted scope of the charter of the DDWG (which was included the "Elaboration" section of the original text). I think perhaps if we highlight the placeholders in the formal definition this might make things a little clearer.

Bear in mind that the reason we need a stable definition is to ensure that the ontology is properly aligned with the intended purposes of the vocabulary (-ies) that will result. We hope to publish a first draft of the ontology material very soon, and we can then see if we're going the right direction.

---Rotan

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/DeviceDescriptionDefinition


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Kevin, VF-Group
Sent: 29 March 2007 11:12
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007


 
Whilst I think Jo's abstract definition is fine, there should be an 'instance' definition for each particular context to make it clearer for users of DDWG and other contexts.

If we replace the placeholders in the abstract definition with the explanatory text for DDWG, rather than supplementing the abstract definiton, we get something like:

"A device description is a formal definition, within the delivery context[1], of the named attributes and their permissible values which are applicable to devices[2]."

...where [1] and [2] link to the DI Glossary. Granted, 'delivery context' may be too broad, but you see what I mean. 

NB having read it a few times I think "[which may take the form of lists, ranges, or other patterns]" makes for disjointed reading and is too much detail, 'permissible' implies a formal constraint and should suffice.

Cheers
Kevin


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
Sent: 29 March 2007 10:49
To: Christian Timmerer (ITEC); public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007


Hi Christian

I completely agree that explanatory notes would be helpful, and I will aim to add some to the Wiki Definition [1].

You ask if the term "some context" was used deliberately and the answer is "yes". As Rotan points out, he included only part of the definition in his summary. The full definition, which as I say is at [1], actually says:

"A device description is a formal definition within some context of the named attributes and their permissible values [which may take the form of lists, ranges, or other patterns] which are applicable to entities of interest in that context."

"In general that entity is a device in the context of interest."

"In the DDWG that entity is something that can fulfil the role of device as defined in the DI Delivery Context."

The reason for putting it this way is that the meaning of "device" can be different according to the context you wish to discuss. As far as the DDWG is concerned the context (and hence the properties of interest) is delivering the Web to mobiles. So a device is something that is capable of accessing the Web, from our perspective.

However, we don't want to exclude the use of the same framework in different contexts. For example, you might want to describe the properties of mobile RRS Readers. We'd like you to use the same device description framework to do that, albeit that your meaning of device and the properties that are of interest are not exactly the same as our meaning of device and the properties that are of interest to us.

I agree that explanation is needed and as I say will add some text at [1] to elaborate. If you have a suggestion as to how the definition itself could be made clearer I'm sure the group would like to hear it.

Thanks for your comments.
Jo


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/DeviceDescriptionDefinition

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Christian Timmerer (ITEC)
> Sent: 29 March 2007 09:39
> To: 'Luca Passani'; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Cc: christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at
> Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Luca, all,
>   as someone who's not "deep inside esoteric W3C lingo" I cannot make this
> observation that the definition means nothing.
> 
> My two cents are as follows:
>  - However, the definition could be extended by notes/examples that helps
> the reader to better understand the definition.
>  - The wording "some context" in first part of the definition causes some
> confusion to me because to me it means that this context needs to be
> defined
> by those who are adopting this definition. I'm wondering whether this
> interpretation is correct/intentional.
> 
> Thanks.
> Best regards,
>  -Christian
> 
> :--
> :- Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Christian Timmerer
> :- Department of Information Technology (ITEC)
> :- Klagenfurt University, Austria
> :- http://research.timmerer.com
> :----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> >> Visit the IT Campus Carinthia
> >> http://www.it-campus.at
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Luca Passani
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:52 AM
> > To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> >
> >
> >
> > "A device description is a formal definition within some context of the
> > named attributes and their permissible values [which may take the form
> > of
> > lists, ranges, or other patterns] which are applicable to entities of
> > interest in that context,"
> >
> > this is not english. It means nothing. It may mean something to those
> > deep
> > inside esoteric W3C lingo. Certainly not suitable for a blog as it is
> > unless
> > you want people to laugh at DD's work.
> >
> > Luca
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:25 AM
> > To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> > Subject: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> >
> >
> > [Weekly conference call, 26 Mar 2007.] "Device Description" described!
> > Initial ontology almost ready for publication. Reviewing OMA documents.
> > Need
> > public input to vocabulary. Details follow:
> >
> > [DD Defined] A text to describe what is meant by "Device Description"
> > has
> > been formally agreed by the group and will become part of the DD group
> > terminology. The definition will require an update to the DI Glossary.
> > The
> > key part of the definition is this: "A device description is a formal
> > definition within some context of the named attributes and their
> > permissible
> > values [which may take the form of
> > lists, ranges, or other patterns] which are applicable to entities of
> > interest in that context," and goes on to mention the role of 'device'
> > and
> > the scope of the DDWG with respect to this definition. The full text
> > will be
> > made public on the wiki.
> >
> > [Ontology Documents] A set of Protégé files capturing an initial
> > ontology
> > have been created by Rhys, together with a sample XHTML document to
> > summarise the information in a human-readable form. Rotan will be
> > looking
> > into providing an automated visual representation, and the set of
> > documents
> > are expected to be made public soon. This is not the Vocabulary, but a
> > framework in which the DDR Vocabulary can be defined.
> >
> > [OMA Liaison] In response to the recent OMA liaison, a formal
> > acknowledgement will be posted on the public mailing list. Furthermore,
> > two
> > members of the group (Jo and Andrea) will be reviewing the OMA
> > documents as
> > requested in the liaison statement.
> >
> > [Vocabulary] It was noted during the meeting that the group could use
> > some
> > more public input, so expect members to mention the DDWG process in
> > blogs
> > and other public channels over the coming weeks.
> >
> > [New Actions] (ACTION-21) Rotan to Liaise with DI and successors ref
> > this
> > definition (of DD). (ACTION-22) Rotan to "Dot-ify" section 3 from the
> > ontology document to make graphical version. (ACTION-23) Jo to work
> > with
> > Andrea to prepare a draft response to OMA Liaison - and review
> > architecture
> > document.
> >
> > [Attendees]
> > Rodrigo Garcia Acevedo (CTIC)
> > Pontus Carlsson (Drutt)
> > Rotan Hanrahan (MobileAware)
> > Martin Jones (Volantis)
> > Cedric Kiss (W3C)
> > Rhys Lewis (Volantis)
> > Jo Rabin (dotMobi)
> > Kevin Smith (Vodafone)
> > Mike Smith (W3C)
> > Andrea Trasatti (M:Metrics/WURFL)
> >
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 10:26:14 UTC

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