W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > July 2009

Seeking Clarification of Patent Licensing Commitments for BONDI APIs [was: Re: Early comparison of Nokia/BONDI APIs]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:24:56 -0400
Message-Id: <72144908-82A6-4E69-92D7-CB49255B1993@nokia.com>
Cc: public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
To: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Dom, All,

Regarding the BONDI APIs, I noticed DAP WG's home page [1] says:

[[
The following were submitted as starting points for this group's  
deliverables:

...

BONDI APIs (including Application Launcher, Messaging, User  
Interaction, File System, Gallery, Device Status, Application  
Configuration Camera, Communication Log, Contact, Calendar, Task)
]]

Would you please clarify i.e. cite the patent licensing commitments  
of these APIs?

Also, when you use "submitted" above, do you mean there was a formal  
Member Submission, a direct submission by OMTP to the DAP WG, or  
something else?

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/


On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:57 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I spent a little of time comparing the APIs that were proposed by  
> Nokia
> to the APIs proposed by BONDI [1].
>
> My comparison is at best superficial, doesn't cover all the APIs, and
> I'm not an expert in API design, so some of my remarks may be
> irrelevant; but I'm hoping it can serve as a starting point for the
> technical discussions around concrete APIs.
>
>  * General
> Some success callback functions defined in BONDI uses a generic
> interface (SuccessCallback) - they should use sub-classes to identify
> and define the expected parameters; for instance, in Messaging,
> ApplicationLauncher,  Gallery, etc; in some of these, I believe the
> success callback may not expect any parameter at all, but that  
> should be
> made explicit.
>
>  * Calendar
> Nokia's interface seems much more complete; e.g. BONDI lacks proper
> handling of recurrent events, which would prevent proper interaction
> with real calendar applications; Nokia's seem to match roughly the JSR
> interfaces.
>
>  * Camera
> BONDI's interface more complete - allows for video and much more
> detailed control of camera settings.
>
>  * Contacts
> Nokia's address interface more precise - note overlap with Geolocation
> v2 spec:
> http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source-v2.html#address_interface (which
> has more fields: county, streetNumber, premises, additionalInfo; diff
> 'postalCode' / 'code'
> Nokia allows for named groups of contacts
> BONDI has a search interface (not Nokia)
>
> * Messaging
> BONDI's definition of account interface? (in  
> getAvailableEmailAccounts -
> cf lack of specialized callback interfaces)
> BONDI doesn't read (or alter) messages lists, only allows to send
> Nokia offers to start message editor; has new messages notifications
>
> Dom
>
> 1. Nokia APIs:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Apr/ 
> 0001.html
>    BONDI APIs:
> http://bondi.omtp.org/1.0/apis/index.html
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 12:25:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:38 UTC