W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > April 2008

Core Vocabulary 1h

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:19:09 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4DEF8CF@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>

Hello everyone.

Contrary to my previous assertion I am now at my desk. And, well, with a half an hour to spare (hmmm, kids haven't eaten yet), and it being Spring, an editor's thoughts turn to editing. So I have carved out of the very living silicon a new draft for your approval based on the notes below, which I have further annotated with my comments.

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/corevocabulary/080410

Diff

http://tinyurl.com/5hsgm8

(note that the end of the document is incorrectly marked)

I may, in fact, be able to join the call Monday, at least by IRC. We live in a changing world. One constant, though, like death and taxes, is publication moratoria. And there is one coming up and I think the last date for a request is Tuesday.

With that, I leave you to enjoy the latest draft, if possible. In the absence of fire, flood, pestilence, plague, boils, slaughter of the first born (and so on) I will not be online over the weekend. But as I remarked, we do live in a changing world.

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> Sent: 10 April 2008 09:56
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Core Vocabulary 1g : Editorial Comments (and regrets for
> Monday)
> 
> 
> As the suggested alterations are editorial in nature, and generally dont
> look like they will cause any difficulty for the group at Monday's
> meeting, I believe we can come to agreement on these. If there are no
> substantive changes, then we can also resolve to publish. (I will take it
> from Jo's comment that he would support such a resolution.)
> 
> I tend to agree, on the basis that the number of aspects will always be
> far out-weighed by the number of properties, that a full chapter on
> aspects would be overkill. Subsection 3.1 is enough. However, one thing I
> would propose (to be consistent with properties) is that 3.1.1 and 3.1.2
> be given anchors named #sec-aspect-device and #sec-aspect-webBrowser,
> which would make it easier to link ot them. Currently all property anchors
> are of the form #sec-property-PropertyID. If somebody later decides to


Done, and a few more besides


> create their own vocabulary they might be inclined to follow this example,
> and the anchoring would sttill work even if they decide to use a
> complicated chapter for aspects.
> 
> Regarding the Top N, it might be an interesting historical reference to
> show the motivation behind the vocabulary, but in formal terms (and in
> terms of our deliverables) we only need to explain the immediate process,
> and that is already covered in the document. If we were to go into
> history, where would we stop? The previous charter? The formation of the
> MWI? No, instead I am planning a major update of the public home page to
> contain important links to the major milestones (including the Top N) and
> links to other important references such as example implementations.
> Indeed, even after this group is closed, I expect the W3C custodians of
> the page to update it with new links to new implementations for some time
> afterwards.
> 
> Now, if we can just focus on finding error (including typos), we should be
> able to complete this. I think we've been working for enough months on the
> substance of the vocabulary to be confident that no further substantive
> changes are necessary.
> 
> ---Rotan
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org on behalf of Jo Rabin
> Sent: Thu 10/04/2008 07:18
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Core Vocabulary 1g : Editorial Comments (and regrets for
> Monday)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some quick comments in line. I'm afraid I shall not be back at my desk
> till Wednesday next week now, so I won't be able to make any changes in
> time for Monday's call. I suggest you resolve to publish modulo any
> editorial changes needed.
> 
> Also my regrets for Monday.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA [mailto:jmcf@tid.es]
> > Sent: 09 April 2008 22:53
> > To: Rotan Hanrahan; Jo Rabin; public-ddwg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Core Vocabulary 1g : Editorial Comments
> >
> > --------
> > Abstract
> >
> > "This document describes the Device Description Repository Core
> Vocabulary
> > for Content Adaptation in the Mobile Web, described in the charter of
> the
> > Device Descriptions Working Group, as well as the process by which the
> > Vocabulary was defined"
> >
> > Introduction
> >
> > "This document identifies properties that are considered essential for
> > adaptation of content in the mobile Web"
> >
> > + Comment: We need to be coherent in the nomenclature, if Mobile Web
> > starts with upper case, it should start with upper case in every place
> >
> 
> Yes agree.

Done, at least in respect of Mobile Web

> 
> > ----
> >
> > Introduction
> >
> > ... baseline Vocabulary for implementations of the Device Description
> > Repository (DDR)
> >
> > + Comment: vocabulary shouldn't start with upper case letter (I think)
> 
> That's deliberate and consistent with DDR Simple API, same goes for
> Property and Aspect. This reflects a request originating with Jongpil in
> Seoul that terms used with a specific intent were highlighted.
> 
> > + Comment: people might misunderstand that there is unique DDR
> >
> > Suggested change:
> >
> > "for Device Description Repository Implementations"
> >
> 
> Seems unlikely that this would be misunderstood but happy to change.

Done modulo "implementations" being spelled with an "i" not an "I"
> 
> > -----
> >
> > Introduction
> >
> > "The Vocabulary makes reference to the ontology for the Web Delivery
> > Context which is being developed by the W3C UWA Working Group [UWA-
> > Ontology]."
> >
> > Comment: We are not actually cross referencing the DC Ontology.
> Shouldn't
> > this text be dropped?
> >
> 
> Yes

Done

> 
> > ----
> >
> > Aspects of the Core Vocabulary
> >
> > "Work on Aspects of the Delivery Context continues, however, for the
> > purposes of this Vocabulary two specific Aspects are identified."
> >
> > Comment: The phrase is unmeaningful to me ...
> >
> 
> Replace with "This Vocabulary defines two aspects."

Done
> 
> > -----
> >
> > I suggest that aspects have an specific chapter with an structure
> similar
> > to the properties
> >
> > + Aspects
> > |---- Device
> > |--------ID
> > |--------Description
> >
> 
> I'd prefer not to do that. On the whole I regret having laid out the
> properties chapter in the verbose way it appears now. It could have been
> done with less of a waste of virtual paper and with a benefit to
> readability.
> 
> I feel that doing the same for Aspects would have little benefit and would
> be to "make a mountain out of a molehill". Naturally I will go with the
> group's inclination on this.
> 
> > -----
> >
> > Property Names and Property Value Types
> >
> > "The Property identifiers are associated with the namespace
> > http://www.w3.org/2008/01/ddr-core-vocabulary"
> >
> > Comment: We need to say clearly that we are referring to the core
> > vocabulary and that other vocabularies will also have its own IRI
> > identifier
> 
> If that's not clear then it should be changed, of course, but this
> document is not about the generality of vocabularies, except where it
> describes how this one was compiled and says that other vocabularies could
> be compiled the same way. On reflection I am not sure that this adds to
> the usability of the document as if I were trying to find out what the
> properties of the core vocabulary are I would not want to read a
> discussion of how to "roll my own".
> 
"The Property identifiers are associated with the namespace
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/ddr-core-vocabulary"

Changed to 

The Property identifiers in this Vocabulary are ...

> >
> > -----
> >
> > When id's of aspects or properties are referenced in the text, they
> should
> > be put between <code> tags, to allow a better internationalization of
> the
> > document
> 
> perhaps


Done

> 
> >
> > -------
> >
> > In the examples, shouldn't we stay away from naming specific products,
> > such as Mozilla Firefox?
> 
> How would you give an example without being specific?
> >
> > ----
> >
> > 4.5.2
> >
> > "Identified as an important Property by the DDWG in its Top N finding.
> > Present in UAProf. Present (and used) in existing adaptation solutions"
> >
> > Comment: "Top N finding" and "UAProf" should be present as references in
> > the document
> 
> Per the above, I am actually not sure that the history of the creation of
> the core vocabulary should actually be in this document. SO I don't know
> that the Top N finding is relevant and perhaps discussion of it should be
> removed.
> 
> UAProf, yup, sure, do you have a workable reference to it?
> 
> 
> >
> > -----
> >
> > 4.5.7
> >
> > "Needed if the screen orientation is rotated 90 degrees, in which case
> > this Property would represent the width of the rotated screen."
> >
> > Comment: This sentence should be dropped as it is even wrong if the
> screen
> > it's rotated this will represent the height of the display
> 
> Yes, I agree per "The total number of addressable pixels in the vertical
> direction of a rectangular display when held in its default orientation"

Done

> 
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > 4.6.4
> >
> > "Count the number of bits usable  ...."
> >
> > Comment: I suggest changing "usable" by "available"
> 
> Count the number of bits used for color definition?


Done per my proposal


> 
> >
> > -------
> >
> > 4.10.3
> >
> > "Set of image formats a client supports as part of a Web page"
> >
> > Comment: Do we really need to say "as part of a Web page"
> 
> This, I believe, was to distinguish what can be displayed in the browser
> from what can be displayed through download.
> 
> Perhaps that explanation should be added.

Explanation added

> 
> >
> > ---------
> >
> > 4.13.3
> >
> > "Which scripting languages are supported."
> >
> > Comment: It should say "Set of scripting languages a client supports" if
> > we want to be coherent with the rest of the property description
> 
> "Set of scripting languages supported." Would be better as the reference
> to "client" is inconsistent with this being a webBrowser property.
> 
Done

> 
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Nothing more for the moment
> 
> These editorial suggestions are of course welcome, but mostly could have
> been made at any time over the last 2 months. The fact that they come
> after a further editorial revision - where there was a specific call for
> revisions to be submitted prior to creating it - and could have been
> included in it, by and large, is a bit frustrating and the cause of
> needless work on my part and a possible frustrating further week's delay
> to publication.
> 
> I hope that people will feel moved to make their comments on the DDR-
> Simple-API asap and not leave till the last minute, on the basis that this
> too would cause needless delay, and quite likely needless effort on the
> group's part, not to mention mine.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> > ________________________________________
> > De: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [public-ddwg-request@w3.org] En nombre de
> > Rotan Hanrahan [rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com]
> > Enviado el: miércoles, 09 de abril de 2008 21:09
> > Para: Jo Rabin; public-ddwg@w3.org
> > Asunto: RE: Core Vocabulary 1g
> >
> > This will be on the agenda for next Monday, with the intention of
> > proposing that it be moved forward for publication. Any remaining
> issues,
> > if any, should be noted in advance on the mailing list, or otherwise we
> > should assume there are no issues and we can resolve to publish.
> >
> > ---Rotan.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org on behalf of Jo Rabin
> > Sent: Wed 09/04/2008 19:09
> > To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> > Subject: Core Vocabulary 1g
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Folks
> >
> >
> >
> > Pls find the latest draft at
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/corevocabulary/080409
> >
> >
> >
> > hopefully we will resolve to make this official version of the W3C Note
> on
> > Core Vocabulary.
> >
> >
> >
> > Use http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff to find differences between it
> and
> > previous versions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jo
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 19:22:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:16 UTC