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

RE: DD Definition

From: Rhys Lewis <rhys@volantis.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Rotan Hanrahan" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009501c771ed$bad57e50$a61e140a@volantisuk>

Hello everyone, 

I just wanted to say that there are ways to add some level of additional
explanation within the DIWG Glossary [1], which is the intended home for
this definition. We found the need to do this with other terms. It's quite
normal for formal definitions of things to appear rather opaque. It seems
to be a natural consequence of precision in definitions. The approach in
the glossary has been to add informative text as additional paragraphs
after the formal definition. We have tended to try and keep this
additional material relatively concise, as the document is a glossary not
an encyclopedia.

I think it would be appropriate to add some additional explanation in this
case, once we've agreed on the definition itself.

Best wishes

[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 Rotan Hanrahan
Sent: 29 March 2007 10:21
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: DD Definition [WAS: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007]

It might not be the form of language used by bloggers, which is not
surprising as this is a formal definition. The definition was reached
after much debate by the active members of the DD group, and while it may
not be perfect, we felt it was sufficient to capture our best

This led to the text being published on the public mailing list, following
one of our regular weekly meetings (in which the active participants spend
an hour discussing the week's issues). We are certainly interested in
public comment and contributions, and the observation by Christian is most
welcome. We will add notes and examples in the wiki in due course.

The use of "some context" does give flexibility to the user of the
definition. We anticipate (hope) that it will be adopted beyond the DDWG,
though it's likely we'll have to negotiate a few adjustments to the

It was certainly not the intention, as indicated by Luca in his public
comment on this W3C list, to create something that would cause people to
laugh at the DD's work. We take our work seriously, and the production of
a formal definition reflects this. If those who have understood the formal
English description would like to propose some less-formal
interpretations, these would be useful (especially as they would tell us
what other people think we have said, rather than just what we ourselves
think we have said).

Thank you for your support.


-----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.

Best regards,

:- 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]
> 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
> 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

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 10:32:43 UTC

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