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

RE: Core Vocabulary 1f

From: Pontus Carlsson <pontus.carlsson@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:05:47 +0100
Message-ID: <0074F19FF6F8534E8F74C56BB84397BB01D6248A@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>

I agree. 
UserAgent should not be an aspect. Better to something like webbrowser, BrowserUA....


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sullivan, Bryan
Sent: den 12 februari 2008 18:39
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Core Vocabulary 1f

I agree with Jose. 

We should use names that refer to (or at least are consistent with) well known user-agents/clients such as established in UAProf, e.g. BrowserUA, PushCharacteristics, MmsCharacteristics...

We could improve the names perhaps but I suggest we be clear upon the basic nature of the user agents we choose to represent as "aspects", i.e. clarify what type of service they focus on, starting with "legacy" user agents which have/had such a clear service type focus e.g. "web browser".

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of José Manuel Cantera Fonseca
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:13 AM
To: Jo Rabin
Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Core Vocabulary 1f


The name 'UserAgent' for an aspect is very dangerous. I mean, a device could have different user agents (the MMS Client, the WAP Push Client, etc, etc), so I would name it "WebBrowser" to express precisely that it is the user agent that corresponds to the browser used to access the web

Best Regards

Jo Rabin escribió:
> 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 Monday, 18 February 2008 19:20:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:00:15 UTC