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

RE: Core Vocabulary round 2 reminder

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:16:19 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B47D4728@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>


Pre-Preface: Dragging this onto the public list ...

Preface: I don't feel strongly about this but ...

It's been observed that the name of the device is problematic, because
it can be sold with different names in different circumstances. No doubt
outside the core vocabulary there is scope for synonym support. However,
inside the core vocabulary we probably want to provide the opportunity
to be as precise as is possible in the circumstances. To that end, I'd
suggest that neither "Brand" nor "Vendor" really gets you there, whereas
"Maker" might get closer. This is especially true of OEM phones however
in simple cases it's a distinction that may be worth making, for
example, the vendor of my phone is Vodafone. Its maker is Nokia. 

Of course it all depends what you mean by Vendor and Brand, but does
Maker allow for less ambiguity?

Jo

Incidentally, while on nomenclature and apologies if this has been
covered on this list before but ... I'm curious as to why the ontology
uses operatingSystemVendor and deviceVendor when the meaning of "Vendor"
is the same in both cases and the usage is qualified by the path in the
ontology. These names make perfect sense for disambiguation when used in
the absence of the path, but when used with the path isn't a vendor a
"vendor"?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-ddwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Rhys Lewis
> Sent: 25 October 2007 08:41
> To: 'Rotan Hanrahan'; 'DDWG'
> Subject: RE: Core Vocabulary round 2 reminder
> 
> 
> I'd just like to note that in the ontology[1], the device vendor and
model
> appear as
> 
> /device/deviceName/deviceVendor and /device/deviceName/deviceModel
> 
> It's probably more structure than DD wants, but I thought I'd point it
out
> anyway. Similar structures are used for the vendors of web browsers
and
> operating systems, for example
> 
>
/device/deviceSoftware/webBrowserSupport/activeWebBrowser/webBrowserVend
or
> and
>
/device/deviceSoftware/operatingSystemSupport/activeOperatingSystem/oper
at
> ingSystemVendor
> 
> One thing worth noting is that in general lots of vendors may be
involved
> in the components of a device, and it might be worth considering
> deviceVendor and deviceModel as the names used in the DDR vocabulary,
> particularly as I believe that the intent is to have a relatively flat
> name space.
> 
> Best wishes
> Rhys
> 
> 
> [1]
>
http://www.w3.org/2007/uwa/editors-drafts/DeliveryContextOntology/2007-1
0-
> 31/DCOntology.html
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: member-ddwg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:member-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> > Sent: 24 October 2007 17:19
> > To: DDWG
> > Subject: RE: Core Vocabulary round 2 reminder
> >
> >
> > I agree with Andrea's list, though I have a feeling that if
> > the Structures work progresses properly then we might have a
> > better way to deal with Brand and Model using Structures
> > rather than vocabulary properties. But anyway, I'm happy
> > enough to go with these during the moratorium period, and see
> > what we learn about them as we work on the API.
> >
> > ---Rotan.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: member-ddwg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:member-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti
> > Sent: 24 October 2007 17:03
> > To: DDWG
> > Subject: Core Vocabulary round 2 reminder
> >
> >
> > Next Monday (Nov, 29) we're voting the last properties that
> > will fit the Core Vocabulary.
> >
> > I'm taking up Rotan's "form" to vote. Here are the properties left:
> >
> > CORE	Form Text Input Mode
> > CORE	Cookie
> > CORE	Has a Pointing Device
> > CORE	Device Brand
> > CORE	Device Model
> > NOT CORE	Shows page title by default
> > NOT CORE	Best Background Colors
> > NOT CORE	Text Rows on Screen
> > NOT CORE	Maximum Image Height on Screen
> > NOT CORE	Maximum Image Width on Screen
> > NOT CORE	File Upload
> > NOT CORE	Preferred Image Format
> > NOT CORE	Preferred Mark-up
> > NOT CORE	Font Faces
> > NOT CORE	Preferred layout method
> > NOT CORE	Preferred font
> > NOT CORE	Tel URI Schema
> > NOT CORE	SMS URI Schema
> > NOT CORE	Marquee
> > NOT CORE	Maximum Download Size
> > NOT CORE	CSS White Space nowrap
> > NOT CORE	Select Control Rendering
> > NOT CORE	Page markup memory limit
> > NOT CORE	Embedded media memory limit
> > NOT CORE	Media download memory limit
> >
> >
> > I haven't worked on property names to make them consistent
> > with what we already have, if you have suggestions, please
> > make on step forward otherwise you'll be bound to my decision
> > (and the names could be in Italian).
> >
> > - Andrea
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 08:16:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:51 GMT