W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-mobile@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Validation in CC/PP

From: Tayeb Lemlouma <Tayeb.Lemlouma@inrialpes.fr>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:25:18 +0200
Message-ID: <01b601c20d3c$12da7220$0314c7c2@galapagos>
To: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-mobile@w3.org>
Hi Mark and Art

> > Why don't you guys just re-do CC/PP in RELAX-NG or XML Schema :-)

I think that the use of RDF in CC/PP is very benefit thanks to the semantic advantages 
of RDF. The problem is in XML serialization of RDF. 
Why don't we think to adopt another XML serialization of RDF for
CC/PP, or for general purposes? 


Tayeb*
----------
Tayeb Lemlouma
http://www.inrialpes.fr/opera/people/Tayeb.Lemlouma/index.html
Opera project
National Research Institute in Computer Science and Control (INRIA Rhône-Alpes, France )
Office B213, phone (+33) 04 76 61 52 81, Fax (+33) 04 76 61 52 07.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>; "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-ccpp-wg@w3.org>; <www-mobile@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: Validation in CC/PP


> 
> Hi Art
> 
> > > From: ext Butler, Mark [mailto:Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> > > 
> > > Well experience with existing CC/PP
> > > vocabularies has shown that even with a small number of 
> > > profiles, vendors
> > > make mistakes when creating profiles. For example they get 
> > > property names
> > > wrong e.g. use PixelsAspectRatio not PixelAspectRatio. There 
> > > is also no
> > > agreement on property literal values so two vendors might 
> > use the same
> > > literal to indicate different capabilities or different 
> > > literals to indicate
> > > the same capability e.g. "1.2.1/June 2000" and "1.2.1" are 
> > > used to refer to
> > > the same capability. 
> > 
> > Seems like these are general RDF issues rather than CC/PP-specific 
> > issues.
> 
> Yes I'd agree with you there. My personal feeling is CC/PP adopted RDF
> before RDF was really finished. However, at this stage, we are stuck with
> RDF. CC/PP really needs validation and data types, both of which RDF is only
> now coming round to considering. Alternatively we could get these features
> in DAML, so another solution would have been for CC/PP to use DAML (or
> possibly the forthcoming Web Ontology Language)
>  
> However, due to the CC/PP charter, we are stuck with RDF so I'm just trying
> to propose pragmatic solutions. 
> 
> > Why don't you guys just re-do CC/PP in RELAX-NG or XML Schema :-)
> 
> "Why don't you guys just" ... if only it was that easy :-)
> 
> Two problems
> i) The CC/PP charter says CC/PP has to be based on RDF. 
> ii) The CC/PP charter says it has to be backward compatible with UAProf.
> 
> So we can't make changes like this without changing the charter and getting
> agreement from WAP Forum.
> 
> regards
> 
> Mark H. Butler, PhD
> Research Scientist                HP Labs Bristol
> mark-h_butler@hp.com
> Internet: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 05:23:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 13:00:00 GMT