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

RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007

From: Smith, Kevin, VF-Group <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:54:21 +0200
Message-ID: <7753CA22B9752F4496FFDAFFF6627A14605986@EITO-MBX03.internal.vodafone.com>
To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>

Hi Andrea,
It's the former, i.e. an example of how the generic device definition description can be realised for DDWG. 
Cheers
Kevin



-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti
Sent: 29 March 2007 11:50
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007


Hi Kevin,
	1 question. Is this an example or a real-world device description,  
so contextualized or are you suggesting to change the "generic"  
device description definition with this?

Cheers,
	Andrea


Il giorno 29/mar/07, alle ore 12:11, Smith, Kevin, VF-Group ha scritto:

>
>
> 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 10:54:30 UTC

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