W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > September 2010

RE: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)

From: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:56:37 -0500
Message-ID: <D37CC1B151BD57489F4F89609F168FE8070EB582@XCH01DFW.rim.net>
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>
Cc: "Rich Tibbett" <richt@opera.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@robineko.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:39 AM
To: Suresh Chitturi
Cc: Rich Tibbett; public-device-apis@w3.org; Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
Subject: Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)

On Sep 29, 2010, at 15:34 , Suresh Chitturi wrote:
> [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> It seems to me that "updated" is useful for any kind of
synchronisation
> (vital for cheap sync at least). I'll note that it does *not* depend
on
> published (if there is no published field the PoCo requirement is
simply
> moot). What are the risks?
> 
> To me "anniversary" doesn't seem dead useful, and its semantics are
> slightly problematic. Is it appropriate to use it for civil unions?
For
> cohabitation? Does it stay valid in case of divorce? How does it apply
> to poly{gamy,amory}?
> 
> For "relationships" I'm not sure. It's certainly tempting to have
people
> define their own social network locally, but this has specific
semantics
> (in the PoCo text at least) of relationships having been
bidirectionally
> confirmed, which seems like more than a bit of a hurdle.
> 
> Suresh>> I would tend to agree with these comments, and my proposal
> would be to keep these fields out at the moment, so we have a good set
> of fields that are not controversial and we can move forward on.

That they might be controversial is not good-enough a reason to drop
them - we need to know *why* they're controversial, otherwise there's no
way of resolving the controversy, and no way of reaching consensus on
either keeping or ditching them.

I can see arguments for dropping anniversary and relationships, but I
see good reason to keep updated - for the reasons detailed above.


Suresh>> For updated (vCard has 'rev', CAB defines an <update> element
which is tied to service updates to indicate if the contact has been
updated or not and what the update is and does not include a timestamp
which is more useful in a way), are we tying this to sync? And if yes,
is sync in the scope? Who populates this field the device, sync layer,
user? Or is it read-only (the API currently has it read/write)? Does the
user really care about the timestamp?

--
Robin Berjon
  robineko - hired gun, higher standards
  http://robineko.com/





---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 14:12:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:13 GMT