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 08:34:41 -0500
Message-ID: <D37CC1B151BD57489F4F89609F168FE8070EB56A@XCH01DFW.rim.net>
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>, "Rich Tibbett" <richt@opera.com>
Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:24 AM
To: Rich Tibbett
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org; Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
Subject: Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)

On Sep 29, 2010, at 01:30 , Rich Tibbett wrote:
>> , except the following ones:
>> -          updated
> = vCard 'rev' field (v2.1-v4).
>> -          relationships
> = vCard 'relation' field (v4 only but quite easily 'x-relation' for
vCard v2.1-v3).
>> -          anniversary (not present in vCard)
> = vCard 'anniversary' field (v4 only but quite easily 'x-anniversary'
for vCard v2.1-v3).
>> I'd suggest that we address this in multiple steps e.g. as below
>> 1)      Agree on the set of fields to include
> It seems we agree on the general fields pending discussion of the
above 3 fields (updated, relationships and anniversary).

Right, so my question here is: how do we move forward on these? I don't
believe we've framed the discussion on these enough that we can solve
them on the call. What are the use cases and issues, the risks and
rewards of supporting them?

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.


Robin Berjon
  robineko - hired gun, higher standards

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 17:23:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:46 UTC