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

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

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:28:25 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9118F88E-DBFB-4BA4-9CAE-F852F5A737BF@nokia.com>
To: "Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston)" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
If items have not been formally submitted with licensing commitments  
etc, then it would be misleading for them to be listed as submissions  
on the DAP page.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jul 30, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:

> 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 12:29:07 UTC

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