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

RE: Core Vocabulary 1f

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:41:01 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4B8809F@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Rotan Hanrahan" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>


Thanks Rotan, in my haste to get the document out I could have made the
point more clearly.

Jo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> Sent: 12 February 2008 09:10
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Core Vocabulary 1f
> 
> 
> Thanks Jo.
> 
> Just for clarification, the editor's comment at the start of section
2.3
> says "the following is not true", and then in the following text it
> mentions that "the DDWG held regular meetings with UWA and kept the
UWA
> informed about the needs of the Vocabulary". I just want to note that
this
> particular part of the paragraph is certainly true. What is untrue in
the
> text is the statement that the "conclusion is a set of properties in
the
> DDR Core Vocabulary [that] relate to semantics in the UWA ontology".
This
> is now merely an aspiration. The timing of the work in the UWA
suggests
> that it will not be possible to reliably bind the properties in the
Core
> Vocabulary to semantics in the ontology. However, as the second
paragraph
> indicates, we anticipate that this will happen eventually. To this
end, we
> will actively promote to the UWA that the UWA ontology shall fully
support
> the Core Vocabulary and that the details of the relationship will
> (eventually) be published.
> 
> Furthermore, we have presented in section 2.4 two terms: UserAgent and
> Device. These terms are initial aspects with which to diambiguate
property
> terms of the Core Vocabulary. We have not presented any formal
vocabulary
> for aspect terms, but have instead left it open for others to create
more.
> It is quite possible that the UWA Ontology will provide a common means
of
> defining aspects, but not within the planned schedule of publication
of
> the Core Vocabulary.
> 
> For those unfamiliar with the idea of aspect, consider the following
> example: the "Vendor" is a property recognised in the Core Vocabulary.
> When you use a DDR API to retrieve the Vendor data for a particular
> delivery context, do you get details of the manufacturer of the
device, or
> details of the software provider? To clarify this property you can ask
for
> the "Device Vendor" or the "UserAgent Vendor". Similarly, you could
ask
> for the "Device Display Width" or the "UserAgent Display Width", which
> would respectively provide the physical dimensions of the screen, and
the
> available dimensions of the window. It would not make sense to ask for
the
> "Device Markup Support" since this is a feature of the User Agent, not
the
> hardware. The Core Vocabulary indicates the aspects that are
associated
> with the various property terms. Readers of this mailing list are
> encouraged to read the document and consider these Associated Aspects
to
> confirm that they make sense. Any comments should be submitted to this
> list.
> 
> The DDWG intends to agree a final version of this document in early
March
> for formal publication. There will also be a specification of an API
for
> DD repositories in which the concept of aspects is expected to be
> recognised. We expect this specification to be available shortly after
the
> March meetings.
> 
> ---Rotan.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org on behalf of Jo Rabin
> Sent: Mon 11/02/2008 23:19
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: Core Vocabulary 1f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This can now be found at
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/corevocabulary/080211.html
> 
> and differences from the previous draft can be viewed by following
this
> link
> 
>
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2
>
FMWI%2FDDWG%2FDrafts%2Fcorevocabulary%2F080129&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.
> org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FDDWG%2Fdrafts%2Fcorevocabulary%2F080211.html
> 
> or
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/35u3c6
> 
> 
> Two issues remain outstanding.
> 
> 1. The relationship to the UWA Ontology section is not correct in the
> initial paragraph.
> 
> 2. The IRI of the Core Vocabulary namespace is to be confirmed.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 09:41:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:52 GMT